RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03612 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), Purple Heart (PH) Medal and upgrade of the Air Medal (AM) with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster to the Airman’s Medal. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested decorations were earned and deserved but not authorized or presented. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered military service in 1943. On 30 April 1970, the applicant retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel. He served 20 years, 11 months and 12 days total active duty and was credited with 1 year, 7 months and 29 days of foreign and/or SEA service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C through E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The DFC may be awarded to any persons who, after 6 April 1917, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty. The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual 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 operational activities against an armed enemy. The Airman’s Medal (AM) is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States or foreign military personnel who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Air Force, distinguish themselves by heroism involving risk of life under conditions other than those for actual conflict with an enemy. The PH is awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces who have been wounded, killed, or who have died or may hereafter die of wounds received in action against an enemy of the United States or opposing force as a result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed force, an international terrorist attack or during military operations while serving as a part of a peacekeeping force. A wound for which the award is made must have required treatment, not merely examination, by a medical officer. Additionally, treatment of the wound shall be documented in the service member's medical and/or health record. Award of the PH may be made for wounds treated by a medical professional other than a medical officer, provided a medical officer includes a statement in the service member's medical record that the extent of the wounds were such that they would have required treatment by a medical officer if one had been available to treat them. After a thorough review of the applicant’s official military personnel record, they were unable to verify award of the DFC. There is no official documentation in the applicant’s record, such as the special order or recommendation for award, nor was any provided with this request to verify the applicant was recommended for or awarded the DFC. The special order is the official source document for award of a decoration. The applicant received award of the AM with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster per Far East Air Forces General Order Number 113 dated 5 March 1953, however, we were unable to verify if he should be considered for upgraded to the Airman’s Medal. There is no official documentation in the applicant’s record, nor did the applicant provide any, such as a recommendation for upgrade from someone with firsthand knowledge, preferably someone from the applicant’s chain of command, a proposed citation or eyewitness statements. After a thorough review of the applicant’s official military personnel record, they were unable to verify award of the PH. They were unable to locate a signed certificate, special order or any other official documentation, nor was any provided, verifying the applicant was recommended for or awarded the PH. The applicant did not provide a detailed personnel account of how the injury occurred. The PH Review Board has the authority (on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force), to determine a veteran’s award of the PH. Each request is considered based on the policies and criteria in use at the time the veteran was injured, and the determination is dependent on the documentary evidence presented. The applicant’s request was not submitted to the PH Review Board as it lacks the medical documentation substantiating medical treatment was received, a detailed personal account of how the injury occurred, and eyewitness statements. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. The AFHRA recommends denial indicating the Soldier’s Medal is meant to recognize a person who distinguished himself by heroism involving voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those of conflict with an armed enemy. The applicant while being heroic did not voluntarily risk his life - he was on a combat flying mission and did not have the option of removing himself from the danger for self-preservation. He was participating in a flying combat mission, which is in itself an act of conflict with an armed enemy. Therefore, the situation and circumstances that he found himself was in the midst of an attack on the enemy and his actions were in response by the enemy’s armed response against his aircraft. As the Far East Air Forces summary of the Solder’s Medal noted, this decoration was used to recognize heroism on the ground and the voluntary risk of life. The option to not risk one’s life is recognized, and if an individual chooses to not risk his life, it would not be considered inappropriate. In addition, the Soldier’s Medal was for recognition of heroism in non-combat situations. Flying a combat mission is the complete opposite of this concept. Therefore, it is the opinion of this researcher that the AM, First Oak Leaf Cluster, is clearly the most appropriate recognition for (then) applicant’s actions on the night of 12/13 September 1952, which was conducted during combat in the air. It is recommended that the request for the Soldier’s (Airman’s) Medal be disapproved. It seems that the key to this request is not whether the applicant was wounded by the enemy (which he was), but if the wound justifies being admitted into a medical facility and receiving a doctor’s attention. In 1952, if a wound did not need a doctor’s attention, then it would heal on its own. If that was the case, this would explain why the terminology of superficial, moderate, serious and severe are often used in documentation at that time concerning wounds. Superficial means that no doctor’s attention is needed, while moderate, serious and severe requires a doctor’s care. As the claimant noted, his wound, although inflicted by the enemy, was so minor that a doctor’s care was not sought after or needed. The criteria in 1952, as it is now, required that the wound must have necessitated medical treatment. This was obviously not the case and therefore, it is the reluctant opinion of this researcher that the claimant be denied the PH due to his wound, although inflicted by the enemy, was so minor that it did not meet the legal requirements for consideration by the standards in-place at that time, since it did not require a doctor’s care. The applicant appears to believe that the DFC is merited to him for participating in a combat tour for sustained operational performance (extraordinary achievement). The Seventh Air Force award criteria for the DFC does not bear this out. The commander of Seventh Air Force noted, “The act of participating in aerial flight is not necessarily sufficient evidence of distinguished flying to justify an End of Tour DFC. This End of Tour award is not an automatic entitlement for all combat crew members. Only those individuals who clearly distinguish themselves beyond normal expectations should be recommended.” Therefore, the DFC could only be awarded to [then] the applicant if there can be shown some specific act that clearly distinguishes him beyond normal expectations should be recommended. No evidence has been provided either from the applicant’s personnel file or from his request package to support such an award. Finally, as uncomfortable as it may be for the applicant, his aircraft accident and his wing commander’s (and his replacement) resultant refusal to allow him to fly for the rest of his tour in Southeast Asia clearly showed their belief that a DFC would be inappropriate in his case. These wing commanders viewed the applicant’s accident that killed 35 men as derogatory information that precluded such an award as a DFC, which if awarded, could bring discredit to the USAF. Nothing has been offered in the applicant’s request to refute this notion. Therefore, it is this researcher’s opinion that the request for a DFC be disapproved. A complete copy of the AFHRA evaluation, with attachments is at Exhibit D. SAF/MRBP concurs with the AFPC/DPSID and AFHRA/RS recommendations and recommend denial for the applicant’s requests. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s states concerning the DFC, he would suggest the bombing practices accomplished by Shoran/Radar Observers in Korea would meet the extraordinary achievement category. All bombing missions after October 1951 were conducted at night. All bombing runs and releases made by his crew were accomplished by him. He submits that the bombing he accomplished would meet the extraordinary achievement requirement. He does not know when the award rules were changed but in other wars, all crew members were awarded DFCs at the end of a completed tour. Concerning the Airman’s Medal - he understands the conditions for award and current criteria. During the period he was in Korea through Vietnam, the criteria must have been different because a general was awarded the medal for helping to load wounded into a medevac helicopter much like our loading the wounded on my mission of 12/13 September 1952 from the aircraft into an ambulance. Concerning the PH medal - he was wounded by a piece of flak on his elbow. The piece of flak ended up in his briefcase along with a small piece of the aircraft. He would agree that the wound was not life threatening and required only a bandage. He and another crew member were more involved getting the severely wounded crew members into an ambulance and to the Base Hospital. If he had known the procedures and conditions for the award, he would have seen the Flight Surgeon at Suwon Air Base, South Korea. He obviously did not meet the criteria for award even though wounded “superficially” - he was still wounded. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 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. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, to include the rebuttal, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that validates his entitlement to the DFC, PH or an upgrade of the Air Medal with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster to the Airman’s Medal. While we are not unmindful or unappreciative of the applicant’s service to our Nation, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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-2014-03612 in Executive Session on Tuesday, 19 January 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03612 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 September 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 30 October 2015. Exhibit E. Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 November 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 November 2015.