RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

	IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03583

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and the Air Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should be awarded the DFC as an “end of tour” medal and the Air Medal with one Bronze OLC for his flights.  The paperwork was lost during his medical evacuation from Vietnam.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Jun 97, the applicant was released from active duty and on 1 Jul 97 retired in the grade of colonel, with 30 years and 11 days of active service.

In 2014, the applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  On 9 Dec 15, he requested his application be administratively closed (Exhibit G), which we did on 13 Dec 15 (Exhibit H).  On 8 Feb 16, the applicant requested that his case be reopened (Exhibit I).

The remaining relevant facts are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and J.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant’s request was not submitted in a timely manner.

The DFC may be awarded to any person who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguishes himself by in-flight heroism or extraordinary achievement.  A heroic act must be voluntary and must be above and beyond the call of duty.  Extraordinary achievement must have yielded results so exceptional and outstanding as clearly to set the airman apart from comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.  Awards will be made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained operations.

The Air Medal may be awarded to any person who, after 8 Sep 39, while serving with the United States Armed Forces, distinguishes himself by meritorious achievement while participating in flight.  The Air Medal may be awarded for single combat or non-combat acts of valor, heroism, or merit.  Additionally, it may be conferred for sustained meritorious achievement (distinction) in the performance of in-flight duties.

There is no official documentation, such as a recommendation or Special Order, in the applicant’s military personnel record to verify he was recommended for or awarded either the Air Medal with one Bronze OLC or the DFC.  Further consideration of the applicant’s request would require eyewitness statements, a proposed citation, and a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act or achievement, preferably someone within the applicant’s chain of command at the time.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFHRA/RS recommends approval for an OLC to the already bestowed Air Medal and disapproval for the DFC.

Regarding the OLC for the Air Medal, the applicant requested that he be recognized for completing 35 Category III missions for his flights from 27 Feb 69 to 23 Jul 69.  A review of his “Pilots Individual Flight Record” (also known as Form 5s) for this period reveals that he flew his first 35 Category III combat flights (Mission Symbol OIA) from 29 Nov 68 through 26 Feb 69.  Seventh Air Force Special Order G-1323, published 3 Apr 69 confirms this.  The next set of 35 Category III missions started on 27 Feb 69 and ran through 8 Jul 69.  In accordance with existing Seventh Air Force award policies, this would qualify the applicant for an OLC to the Air Medal.  Therefore, it is recommended to the AFBCMR that the OLC to the Air Medal be approved and bestowed upon the applicant.

In regards to the DFC, AFHRA/RS has investigated the award system during the period in question.  AFHRA/RS has also reviewed what awards were bestowed upon which 537th Tactical Airlift Squadron personnel, as well as why the applicant--then a lieutenant--was not considered for an award.  In summary, it appears that the squadron leadership at the time did not consider the applicant’s actions to be significant enough to warrant the bestowal of the DFC.  That is a decision that cannot be second-guessed by others 46 years later.  As no evidence of a clerical or administrative nature has been found, nor evidence of any attempt by the 537th Tactical Airlift Squadron to submit the applicant for the DFC, AFHRA/RS does not recommend granting the applicant’s request for a DFC.

A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he met the basic squadron commander criteria of four missions over Ben Het, and his flight engineer received the DFC on the same date of 21 Jun 69 when he was the co-pilot.  Although there was no official recommendation that could be found, the history, as outlined in the two agencies’ research, provided a clear picture of both occurrences.

Regarding his request for the Air Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, he would like to point out that the Form 5 documentation meets the established Seventh Air Force award policy criteria that were in place at the time of his 35 Category III combat missions.

The applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP states that after review of the applicant’s application, they recommend approval for an OLC to the already bestowed Air Medal and disapproval for the DFC.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit J.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Apr 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit K).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore untimely; however, it is in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that the requested relief is warranted.  We note the rationale of AFHRA/RSA, adopt it as our own, and find no basis on which to recommend favorable action.

4.	Nevertheless, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to warrant partial relief.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFHRA/RSA; and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.

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 awarded the Air Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03583 in Executive Session on 16 May 2017 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 20 August 2014, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 December 2014.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 23 September 2015,
  w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 October 2015.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 November 2015.
	Exhibit G.  E-Mail, Applicant, dated 9 December 2015.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 December 2015.
	Exhibit I.  E-Mail, Applicant, dated 8 February 2016.
	Exhibit J.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 29 February 2016.
	Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 April 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03583.