RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03543 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Distinguished Flying Cross First Oak Leaf Cluster (DFC w/1OLC) be upgraded to a Silver Star medal. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unjustly denied award of the Silver Star for the following reasons: 1.  In 1969, his wing leadership was in the best position to know what happened on a mission on which he served as Crew Chief during the Vietnam War, and they chose to upgrade the DFC nomination packages to Silver Star nominations for all four nominated crew members involved in the mission. His leadership at the time believed he deserved the Silver Star. 2.  Both the pilot and co-pilot on the mission in question received Silver Stars, but the Silver Star nomination packages for the two nominated enlisted crew members were lost and they did not initially receive any awards. The applicant and the Assistant Crew Chief eventually received decorations in 1984, but they were DFCs instead of Silver Stars. 3.  In May 84, when they were directed to resubmit DFC nomination packages, the Vice Commander of Pacific Air Command (PACAF/CV) reviewed the DFC nominations and agreed the decorations should be Silver Stars. 4.  The mission was highly classified and covert. Due to the classification of the mission, the awards board did not understand the true impact of the gallant and courageous actions of the crew. 5.  All four members of the crew should have received the same awards because they worked as a team, and not as individuals. The position of the two enlisted members was more dangerous than the officers due to their being exposed on the helicopter skids while the pilots were safer in the armor plated cockpit. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 4 Feb 63. On 20 Feb 69, near Duc Lap, Republic of Vietnam, the applicant served as the Crew Chief on a helicopter crew which was called upon to rescue a long range reconnaissance patrol that was surrounded and in danger of being overrun by a hostile force. During the four to five minute precarious 20-foot hover, the applicant exposed himself in the open doorway of his helicopter in order to guide the pilot into the landing zone and to assist the patrol in boarding the aircraft despite the hostile ground fire. He also manned the M-60 machine gun to suppress enemy fire. At one point, the applicant was blown off the helicopter’s skid by the concussion of an explosion and only his safety line prevented him from falling. He scrambled back into position on the skid and resumed his duties of suppressing enemy fire. During the helicopter’s ascent, the applicant provided accurate guidance to the pilot to ensure the dangling 25-foot long rope ladders did not become ensnared in the tall trees tightly surrounding the landing zone. On 1 Jan 93, the applicant voluntarily retired after serving 29 years, 10 months, and 27 days of active service. On 6 Aug 10, AFPC/DPSIDR administratively corrected the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, to reflect that he was awarded the Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM), and to change the Air Force Presidential Unit Award to read “Presidential Unit Citation with one Oak Leaf Cluster (PUC w/1OLC). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The Silver Star is the third highest military valor decoration that can be awarded to a person serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces. The Silver Star may be awarded to any individual while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces who distinguishes himself or herself by gallantry in action under any of the following circumstances: while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or, while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in an action in which the United States is a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than required for award of the Medal of Honor or the Air Force Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction. A thorough review of the applicant’s official military personnel record revealed no signed recommendation for the Silver Star, proposed citation, eyewitness statements attesting to the gallantry of the applicant’s actions or endorsements for the Silver Star from his chain of command. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) has previously denied similar requests from the applicant, as noted in the response letter to the applicant’s U.S. Senator, dated 20 Jul 84, wherein SAFPC stated the applications did not meet the requirement for the Silver Star. It does not appear the applicant provided any new and relevant information with this application which was not previously submitted by the applicant and considered by SAFPC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFHRA/RS does not make a recommendation, but presents a chronology of events of the case; comments on the differences between the actions of the two enlisted members on the day of the mission; examines the difference between the DFC and Silver Star criteria; provides a historical perspective of Award Board authorities; and, addresses what he perceives to be misperceptions in the application. 1.  This case is a mirror image of the Assistant Crew Chief’s application to upgrade his DFC to a Silver Star (BC-2013-03543). In 1984, the PACAF/CV strongly recommended both enlisted crew members received the Silver Star for their actions. Had the authority to award the Silver Star without seeking approval from Headquarters Air Force (HAF) remained with PACAF, both men would have Silver Stars today. 2.  The following is a chronology of events of the case: a.  On 20 Feb 69, the mission in question was accomplished. b.  Upon return from the mission, the crew’s squadron commander (SQ/CC) nominated the four members of the flight crew (Pilot, Copilot, Crew Chief (the applicant), and Assistant Crew Chief) for DFCs based upon their actions on 20 Feb 69. The 14th Special Operations Wing Vice Commander (14 SOW/CV) directed the DFC nominations be upgraded to Silver Star nominations. The pilot and copilot were subsequently awarded Silver Stars, but the award packages for the Crew Chief and Assistant Crew Chief were lost, and they initially did not receive any awards or decorations for the mission. c.  On 7 Jan 83, the applicant’s SQ/CC from 1969 re-accomplished the DFC nomination packages for the two enlisted crewmembers and submitted them to HQ PACAF as DFCs in compliance with guidance from the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for Legislative Liaison (SAF/LL). The SQ/CC also submitted an affidavit explaining the original DFC nominations had been upgraded to Silver Star nominations in 1969. d.  On 28 Feb 83, the PACAF/CV reviewed the nomination packages and recommended the two enlisted members for DFCs. e.  On 2 Apr 83, under Special Order GB-216, the applicant was awarded the DFC for heroism while participating in aerial flight. The Assistant Crew Chief also received the DFC. According to the PACAF Director of Personnel (PACAF/DP), the awards board was directed to consider the two enlisted crew members for Silver Stars. f.  On 25 May 83, the applicant’s Congressman submitted a request to the President of the United States on behalf of the applicant and the Assistant Crew Chief, seeking to have their DFCs upgraded to Silver Stars. However, the Air Force Decorations Board considered and denied the request. g.  On 8 Apr 84, the Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC) notified the applicant a nominating official had up to one year from the time of denial of an award to resubmit additional information through the original processing channels--in this case, the PACAF/DP. Subsequently, the by-then retired former SQ/CC resubmitted the award nomination packages to PACAF seeking upgrade of the DFCs to Silver Stars. (It is notable that the pilot did not participate in the 1984 submission to upgrade the DFC to the Silver Star. It is not known why he did not participate. He may have disagreed with award of the Silver Star, or he may have passed away by this time.) h.  On 23 May 84, the new PACAF/CV reviewed the nomination packages and recommended both the enlisted crew members for Silver Star. i.  On 19 Jul 84, SAFPC disapproved the request to upgrade the DFCs, stating the event did not meet the Silver Star criteria. j.  On 12 Dec 03, the applicant applied to the AFBCMR with virtually the same application package, requesting his DFC be upgraded to the Silver Star. The request was referred to SAFPC, where it was denied. 3.  There was one difference between the actions of the two enlisted crew members during the mission in 1969. When an explosion impacted the helicopter, the applicant was blown off the helicopter’s skid from the concussion of the explosion with only his safety line preventing him from falling, which could have caused his death. He scrambled back into position on the skid and resumed his duties of suppressing enemy fire. On the other skid, the Assistant Crew Chief was blown back into the helicopter by the explosion. He then unhooked his safety line and moved far enough forward on the helicopter skid to close the co-pilot’s door and provide the co-pilot additional protection. The difference between these two actions is a matter of discussion for the AFBCMR Board members. 4.  Air Force Manual (AFM) 900-3, Decorations, Service Awards, Unit Awards, Special Badges, Favorable Communications, Certificates, and Special Devices, which was in force in Feb 69, states: a.  The Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) is awarded for either heroism or extraordinary achievement. For heroism, it is awarded for heroism while participating in aerial flight, and serving in any capacity with the Air Force. Heroism must be entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine. b.  The Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action that does not warrant a Medal of Honor or the Air Force Cross, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force, while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or, while serving with friendly forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. There is a footnote to this standard in the AFM that reads: “Gallantry in action means heroism of high degree involving risk of life.” It appears the difference between these two awards is found in the difference between heroism and gallantry. The courage shown by the applicant meets the criteria for “gallantry in action” as called for in the criteria for the Silver Star. 5.  AFM 900-3 also states, concerning award of the Silver Star, “the authority is delegated down to commanders of numbered air forces during wartime for awards to US military personnel,” and “If the decoration is the Silver Star, special approval authority for Southeast Asia is exercise by PACAF and 7AF.” Because the original 1969 award packages for the two enlisted crew member were lost, the opportunity for either 7AF or PACAF Award Boards to make a final decision was prevented. In 1983, the award packages were reconstituted by the original submitters and submitted to the approval authority at that time, through PACAF and to the Department of the Air Force. Had the award packages only needed to be sent to 7AF or PACAF in 1969, it is more likely that the recommendations would have been approved. In 1984, the PACAF/CV, with additional information, reversed his predecessor’s decision and strongly recommended the two enlisted crew members be awarded the Silver Star. 6.  Although the application includes new eyewitness accounts of the 20 Feb 69 mission, written many years later, these additional accounts only substantiate the original narratives, but bring little new information that would increase or decrease the Silver Star criteria of “gallantry in action” on the part of the applicant. In addition, the applicant suggests that the 7AF Awards Board may not have known all the facts of the case because it was classified. In actuality, the 7AF would have had highly placed representatives from all over to review these awards and an award of the Silver Star would have been very specifically reviewed for its appropriateness. The applicant also suggests there may have been a limit to the number of Silver Star recommendations allowed, or that 7AF would not accept Silver Star recommendations for enlisted personnel. However, there was no limit to the number of Silver Star medals awarded during the Vietnam War, and numerous Silver Star medals were bestowed upon enlisted personnel who met the criteria. Finally, the applicant raises an old argument that everyone on the crew should get the same award because the crew acts as a team and therefore no one is more important than the other. This is simply not true. Each man on this mission had his particular part to play, but in the end, the pilot in command made the hard decision. The pilot of the helicopter chose to hover for almost five minutes while under direct fire. Were the actions of the applicant worthy of award of the Silver Star? One can make a strong case to grant or deny. A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: While he is thankful for the extensive research in the advisory from AFHRA, he is disappointed in the lack of detail and the omission of facts in the advisory from AFPC. His application includes an enormous amount of information showing the request to upgrade the DFC to Silver Star by the 14th Special Operations Wing Commander and support from the aircraft commander on the mission, yet the AFPC advisory states there were no eyewitness statements or chain of command endorsements. It is almost as though the writer of the AFPC advisory did not read any of the evidence provided. The AFPC advisory also states the request was “considered by the Air Force Personnel Council and did not meet the requirements for award of the Silver Star,” while the AFHRA contradicts that by stating that in 1984 the PACAF/CV strongly recommended the applicants for the Silver Star, and if that recommendation was present in 1969 both men would have the award to this day.” Further, the comment in the AFHRA that the initial award packages in 1969 were “evidently lost” distresses him because the writer did not accept the sworn testimony of several senior Air Force officers that they were actually lost. He knows fellow Special Forces folks who were not submitted for award due to the nature of their mission, so the argument in the AFHRA advisory that it doesn’t matter what the classification of these operations was is wrong. Finally, he takes exception to several points in the AFHRA advisory, such as the argument that the pilot deserved the Silver Star because he had the responsibility to make the final decisions on the mission, without addressing the fact that the co-pilot, who did not make the final decisions, was also awarded the Silver Star while the two enlisted members were initially given no award (Exhibit F). ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 30 Sep 13, the applicant’s Assistant Crew Chief submitted an almost identical application to the AFBCMR to have his DFC upgrade to a Silver Star for this same mission. The case was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) for a final decision, and the SecAF directed the Assistant Crew Chief’s DFC be upgraded to a Silver Star. In her decision, the SecAF highlighted the fact that the nomination packages for award of the Silver Star for the enlisted members on the mission were lost in 1969 and they received no recognition for their heroic contributions, while the two officers on the same mission whose packages were considered each received the Silver Star. Subsequently, when the PACAF/CV recommended the enlisted members for the Silver Star, the approval level for award of the Silver Star had been transferred up to HAF and as a result the bar was raised, and the two enlisted members were only awarded DFCs (Exhibit G). APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF the ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He notified the AFBCMR he would not submit a rebuttal or any additional information to supplement his original application (Exhibit I). 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinions, we believe the applicant is the victim of an injustice. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPSID indicating relief should be denied because the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) has previously denied similar requests from the applicant, we believe there was clear evidence the applicant was unjustly denied fair consideration of his original Silver Star nomination when the nomination package was lost in 1969, and he did not receive any decoration for his heroic actions until 1983. We are convinced that had the applicant’s original nomination package not been lost, he would have been awarded a Silver Star in 1969 as his leadership fully intended, and by the time he was denied the Silver Star in 1983 the bar for award of the Silver Star had been raised substantially as the environment for approving awards had changed in the decade since the end of the Vietnam Conflict. Therefore, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective action is warranted, and recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was not awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross First Oak Leaf Cluster on 2 April 1983, but was instead awarded the Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action on 8 December 1969. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03543 in Executive Session on 15 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Feb 15. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFHRA/RS dated 10 Jun 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jul 15. Exhibit G.  Memorandum, SECAF, dated 8 Jun 15. Exhibit H.  E-mail, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jul 15. Exhibit I.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 14 Jul 15.