RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03019 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Silver Star (SS) be upgraded to the Medal of Honor (MOH). He be awarded the “V” device on his Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism on 26 Apr 64. (Administratively Corrected) APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There were unjust restrictions placed on awards and decorations for covert operations during the early days of the Vietnam War (1963 to 1964). He had only seen the unclassified citation for the SS until recently and was unaware of the documented results of the combat missions flown by him on 25 Jun 64. The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider his application based on the verified results on the DD Form 173, Joint Message Form, dated 24 Jul 64 (now unclassified). There was an injustice as a greater risk of life above and beyond the call of duty occurred, verified enemy losses for one day of combat and the assessed damage to his aircraft would indicate a higher award should have been submitted. In a letter dated 14 Mar 11, the Commander of the 1st Air Commando Squadron in Vietnam at the time states he wrote the “Blue Cube” recommendation for the SS. At the time, the Commander of the 34th Tactical Group and endorser of the award felt the magnitude and scope of the applicant’s heroic action exceeded the criteria for entitlement to the MOH. However, there was an unwritten policy that covert operations would be restricted to the SS to avoid publicity. He stated that there was a huge discrepancy as several Top Secret citations existed to protect secondary parties. The heroic actions of the applicant displayed on 25 Jun 64 warrant award of the MOH. The applicant’s actions achieved what previous to 23 and 24 Jun 64 had not been accomplished and with the loss of two aircraft. Unequivocally, the applicant displayed and exceeded the minimal criteria for award of the MOH. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of DD Form 173, a letter of support and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 16 Dec 56 and was retired on 30 Jun 76 in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). Per Special Order GB-197 dated 4 Aug 64, the applicant was awarded the SS for gallantry while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force on 25 Jun 64. His DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 28 Aug 12, amended his record to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with Valor (DFC w/V). On 31 Oct 11, the applicant requested his case be administratively closed until he was able to proceed (Exhibit E). On 20 Feb 12, the applicant requested his case be re-opened (Exhibit G). He states the correction of his records was also being pursued through Congressional channels and he would submit this information to the Board. The applicant submitted his request for award of the MOH through his Congressman on 6 Aug 14 (Exhibit K). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant requests his SS be upgraded to the MOH; however, the letter provided requests the applicant be reconsidered for the MOH. There is no indication that the applicant was initially recommended for the MOH and disapproved or downgraded to the SS. The MOH recommendation as provided, if approved, would constitute dual recognition as he has already been recognized for his actions on 25 Jun 64 with award of the SS. The recommendation package does not include a proposed citation, chain of command endorsements or eyewitness statements to support the request, nor was the request submitted through Congressional channels. The MOH is the highest and most prestigious U.S. military medal. It is awarded by the President of the United States in the name of Congress. The MOH may be awarded to members of the U.S. Armed Forces who distinguish themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their lives above and beyond the call of duty under any of the following circumstances: (1) while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States, (2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, (3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force for which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life. It is necessary that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Service member performed the valorous action for which they were recommended for the MOH. While MOH criteria include a requirement for the Service member to risk his or her life, there is no requirement for the member to be wounded or killed in order to meet the “risk of life” portion of the MOH criteria. Under the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Section 526, which was enacted into law on 10 Feb 96, the original or reconstructed written award recommendation is required for the recommended individual. The recommendation must be made by someone, other than the member himself, preferably the commander or supervisor at the time of the act of achievement, with firsthand knowledge of the member’s accomplishments. If someone has firsthand knowledge of the applicant’s accomplishments and achievements, he may act as the recommending official. The recommendation must include the name of the decoration, reason for recognition (heroism, achievement or meritorious service), inclusive dates of the act, and a narrative description of the act. The recommending official must sign the recommendation and a proposed citation is required; any chain of command endorsements are encouraged. Any statements from fellow comrades, eyewitness statements attesting to the act, sworn affidavits, and other documentation substantiating the recommendation should be included with the package. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 10 Jan 14, the applicant states his Form 5, Pilot Individual Flight Record, shows he flew three combat missions on 25 Jun 64. The facts of that day were validated by the squadron commander of the T-28/A1E Section of the 1st Air Commando Squadron and the Commander of the 34th Tactical Group. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends the Air Force Decorations Board determine if the documents submitted are enough to consider the applicant for the MOH. Should the decorations board determine the nomination package is sufficeint, the applicant’s request would be processed to the Secretary of the Air Force for consideration of the award of the MOH. Should the MOH be awarded, the SS will require revocation to preclude dual recognition of the applicant’s achievements of 25 Jun 64. Should the decorations board find the documentation an incomplete nomination package, the decorations board would advise what documentation is required and appropriate response be provided to the applicant. The applicant requests his SS be upgraded to the MOH; however, there is no indication the applicant was initially recommended for the MOH and disapproved or downgraded to the SS. The MOH recommendation provided, if approved, would constitute dual recognition as the applicant has already been recognized for his actions on 25 Jun 64 with award of the SS. The recommendation package does include a proposed citation submitted through a Congressional office and a nomination for the MOH signed by the applicant’s commander on 25 Jun 64. It does not contain chain of command endorsements or eyewitness statement(s) to support the request. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit J. SAFPC recommends denial. There is no additional information provided further amplifying the applicant’s actions on 25 Jun 64. The approving authority at that time felt the SS was the appropriate recognition for his actions. Additionally, the applicant has not substantiated the contention of an “unwritten policy” regarding limitations on award types, and has provided no evidence to corroborate his contention. The applicant has submitted the request for consideration through 10 U.S.C. § 1130, consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion. He contends that at the time of his actions there was an unwritten policy that covert/special operations would be restricted to the SS to avoid publicity and that policy originated from the Secretary of Defense; however, there is no evidence to support the contention. Furthermore, the nomination citation included in the nomination for the MOH does not contain any additional information not already provided in the “Blue Cube” message that was considered when awarding the SS to the applicant. A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit L. APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Until four years ago he had only received the unclassified citation for award of the SS. He learned recently he was given credit for killing 400 Vietcong soldiers while saving the lives of 30 friendly forces plus preventing the overrun of three Special Forces outposts. The colonel conducting the research of his SS told him that he had read most of the MOH cases from WWII and the Korean War and that no one had achieved results like he had. The Air Force evaluation dated 21 Aug 14, states the recommendation must be made by the squadron commander or supervisor who at the time had firsthand knowledge of the facts surrounding the event. He provides letters from his commanders at the time who state that there was a problem with trying to go for anything higher than a SS at the time based on information received from 7th Air Force. Both of these individuals had intimate knowledge of the facts surrounding the results of his three combat missions on 25 Jun 64. In regards to the timeliness of the application, it is true he knew nothing about the original Blue Cube process until he received the SS three months later in 1964 while stationed at Kadena AB. It was also not until a copy of the DD Form 173 was available that he decided to submit the request for upgrade to the MOH. At that time in the Vietnam War (1963-1964) everything he did was classified. He hopes the Board will reconsider the facts as they occurred in combat on 25 Jun 64 as the nominating commander indicated in the Blue Cube recommendation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit N. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us that the applicant’s service records should be corrected to award the MOH. While we are not certain of whether the applicant performed acts worthy of recognition by the MOH vice the SS, he has not provided substantial evidence to show that he has been the victim of error or injustice. The applicant states that his quest for the medal upgrade began after being contacted by a colonel conducting research on awards and decorations presented to American servicemen in 1963-64 and that he was advised by the colonel to submit an application to the BCMR. However, none of the research work included supports that there may have been a problem in the recognition of the acts of service members in Vietnam from 1963-64 which may have been helpful. Nevertheless, we are left with the retrospective view of the initiator of the award almost 50 years later. In our view, it would seem reasonable that if the applicant or the commander thought an injustice had been done, they should have pursued this sooner, even considering the classified submission was not downgraded until 25 years later, especially since they claim there was an "unwritten policy" restricting the level of award that could be sought. There is much more information needed to support this appeal and since the AFBCMR is not an investigative agency, we conclude the applicant has not sustained his burden of showing he is the victim of error or injustice. The applicant’s personal sacrifice and unselfish service to his country is noted and our decision in no way lessens our regard for his service; however, without sufficient documentation to substantiate his request, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. In the absence of evidence to the contrary we find no basis to grant the requested relief. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03019 in Executive Session on 23 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03019 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 22 Jul and 22 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Sep 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Oct 11. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Oct 11. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Feb 11 [sic]. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Feb 12, w/atchs. Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit L. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Aug 14. Exhibit M. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit N. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jun 14, w/atchs.