RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04388

  			               COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Silver Star (SS) medal be upgraded to the Air Force Cross (AFC).

By Amendment at Exhibit F, all references to his performance evaluations and medical records be redacted from the AFPC/DPSID advisory opinion.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes discrimination was a major factor in awarding medals for heroism and gallantry during his tour of duty in South East Asia (SEA).  Specifically, he believes that because the one Airman was a Caucasian male and he is a Black male, and the Airman’s rank was Airman First Class (A1C) and his rank was Airman Second Class (A2C), he was discriminated against.  In this respect, another Airman basically performed the same actions that he performed; however, the Airman was awarded the AFC for his actions whereas he was awarded the SS medal.  They both rendered aid to the pilot who was seriously injured and died a few hours after our evacuation.  They both assisted all of the injured soldiers and Airmen at the landing zone.  Some troops were still on the ground and he stayed to continue to assist wounded troops.  While still on the ground, he heard members of the helicopter crew calling out to him to get on; he was the last man to get on the last helicopter after all of our troops were evacuated.

By way of background, he was a member of a crew that was shot down by hostile fire while performing an evacuation mission of U.S. Special Forces members near the borders of Vietnam and Cambodia.  Their crew consisted of four Airmen and one Army medic.  While hovering over the Special Forces Camp the right front of helicopter was hit by hostile fire, which struck the pilot in the abdomen.  As a result, both pilot (who was seriously wounded) and co-pilot lost control of the helicopter and they crashed in close proximity to the Special Forces Camp.  The Special Forces troops were under hostile fire at the time.  After crash landing, he observed the pilot exiting the aircraft and an attempt to make his way to the encampment; however, the pilot he was seriously injured and fell to the ground.  He and a medic rendered aid to the pilot and carried him as they made our way to the camp.  They were under heavy hostile fire for quite some time before air support was able to conduct an air assault in the area around them.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 November 1964.

The applicant was awarded the SS for his actions in Southeast Asia (SEA) on 31 March 1967, as noted in the citation to accompany the SS medal, which reads “… distinguished himself by gallantry in connection with military operations against an opposing armed force as a UH-1F Flight Mechanic in Southeast Asia on 31 March 1967.  On that date, Airman P’s aircraft was shot down while participating in the evaluation of a beleaguered party of American and allied ground forces.  In the landing zone, Airman P refused evacuation until all more seriously wounded personnel had been airlifted from the scene.  By his gallantry and devotion to duty, Airman P has reflected great credit upon himself and the United State Air Force.”

On 16 October 1968, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 3 years and 11 months of active service. 

The  AFC criteria:  Awarded to service members who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Air Force distinguish themselves by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of the Medal of Honor 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; while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
  
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C, D, and E.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to upgrade his SS to the AFC.  Also, recommending disapproval due to the timeliness of the applicant’s request as the act occurred over 45 years ago.  The applicant provided what appears to be a hand typed copy of a fellow Airman’s AFC citation and while the citations do read similarly, the Airman’s did not receive award of the AFC for the same exact action the applicant received award of the SS.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to support his claim other than the fellow Airman’s AFC citation.

While the applicant's actions were heroic, there is no evidence in the applicant's record nor was any provided to support upgrade or justify an error or injustice exists.  The applicant contests he does not see any difference between the actions of his fellow Airman and himself; therefore, he must have been racially discriminated against and received a lower decoration.  While both Airmen's actions were heroic it is noted in the Airman’s citation that he exposed himself to the hostile field of fire to give manual landing directions to the recovery helicopters.  The applicant’s citation does not note this act was performed by the applicant; the additional exposure to hostile fire by the other Airman to provide manual landing directions to helicopters may have made the difference in the original recommending officials and original award approval authority's opinion.  Nevertheless, should the applicant wish to pursue upgrade of the SS to the AFC he will need to submit a recommendation for upgrade from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement preferably from someone within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, and eyewitness statements in order for his request to be reasonably considered.

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

AFHRA/RS recommends denial.  AFHRA provided a 15-page detailed analysis outlined in an attachment to their advisory opinion, which can be found at Exhibit D-1.  The Air Force Archivist notes that although gallant, the intentional repeated exposure to enemy fire to assure the original mission of removing wounded from the Special Forces Camp raises the fellow Airman’s actions above the applicant’s actions on the same day.  Further, there is no evidence that the local squadron discriminated against the applicant in their recommendations for awards; quite the contrary, they were very enthusiastic about the applicant, as evidenced by their comments and ratings in his annual performance reports.  There is no evidence that higher headquarters would have even known the racial background of the applicant, as none of the paperwork that the 7th Air Force (7th AF) or the Pacific Air Force (PACAF) awards and decorations board would have had that type of information.

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

SAF/MRBP concurs with the opinions and recommendation of AFPC/DPSID and AFHRA/RS to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his SS to an AFC.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In rebuttal to the AFHRA/RS advisory opinion and analysis, he points out the statements contained in paragraph 4, page 13, “Analysis of the Differences Between the Two Awards Bestowed on H and P” and paragraph 3, page 14, the writer states, “In reality, there are only three differences between the two citations:”

		1. H [thereafter H will be referred to as Airman] is recognized for his extraordinary heroism; P [thereafter P will be referred to as applicant] is recognized for his gallantry.

		2. The Airman helped carry the pilot (assisting an unknown person, most likely the U.S. Army medic).  The applicant did not, although it is noted that he remained with his mortally wounded pilot.

		3. The Airman intentionally exposed himself to enemy fire by standing up at the helicopter landing zone to provide hand signals to the helicopters arriving to assure safe arrival and departures, the applicant did not.

With regards to the writer’s first assertion the author of the two citations would only have to use certain subtleties to justify his recommendations.  One glowing testimonial and a less sterling account of the same incident can make a world of difference.  The complexion and importance of a significant event may be diminished by the omission of a few important facts or actions.  For example, if his citation for the SS had begun with, Airman P distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism, as opposed to by gallantry, in connection with military operations against an opposing armed force … the remaining content of the citation remained the same.  Would the citation pass muster and would the AFC have been awarded?  A compelling argument can be made that it would pass muster.  He recalls giving a sworn statement regarding this event and would think that others involved that day would have done the same.  Did the author of the AFHRA advisory analysis review these statements?   If not, he requests these sworn statements be examined as well.

The second assertion is erroneous, as it was the Airman and he who carried the pilot for the entire duration, from the Special Forces Camp to the landing zone.  He was with the pilot from the time of the crash to the time they carried him to the first helicopter to reach the landing zone.  After getting the pilot onto the helicopter, he continued to assisted the wounded onto helicopters.  He too was exposed to enemy fire as well. Even though his citation does not mention that.

With regards to the third assertion, while he agrees that the Airman’s actions was heroic, he did not expose himself time and again as each helicopter came and went. If that were the case, then the Airman would not have been available to assist the wounded in the evacuation.  He realizes that both the he and the Airman assisted many of the wounded onto the helicopters as they approached the landing zone.  

Regarding page 15 of the AFHRA/RS advisory analysis, the writer mentions leaving Special Forces Camp bunkers and to move into the open, stand up and provide the manual landing directions.  However, there were no bunkers at the landing zone.  After moving from the Special Forces Camp and after a long trek to the landing zone, they were in dense jungle and had to use machetes to clear a landing zone for the helicopters to land.  They were situated in this area awaiting evacuation.  When the helicopters approached we prepared to start the evacuation.  The Airman directed the first helicopter into the landing zone and then assisted in the evacuation.  There was no running back and forth into the bunker as no buckers existed. 

The applicant is not contending that there was discrimination by the local squadron or in the higher military authority; to the contrary, his focus is the author of the two citations.  One must examine the documents available to the author of the citations for him and the Airman.  He believes they were written by the same individual.  A crafty writer can utilize omissions, subtleties and embellishments to alter the substance of an important event.  His is asking that these documents be examined carefully to determine, if there was important information that may have been overlooked.  He did not indicate that he believed a pattern of discrimination existed and he would agree that the higher headquarters would not have known his race.  However, he is sure that the author of the citations knew.

Furthermore, when you examine the two citations closely, you will see that they are very similar.  However, the applicant’s citation does not mention hostile fire while assisting the wounded onto the helicopters and that he assisted the wounded in the evacuation.  It merely states that he refused evacuation until all the more seriously wounded personnel had been airlifted from the scene.  He would have been derelict in his duties had he just remained in the landing zone without assisting at all in the evacuation.  He had no life threatening injury; therefore, he was able to carry the pilot, with the help of the Airman.  The citation also states that he remained with the pilot before and after the pilot's death.  This would indicate that he carried the pilot, but for some reason, the writer of the advisory opinion believes that the Army medic performed this task.

As you can see, clearly the author of the two citations took the same incident and adorned one of them and made the other a little less glamorous.  The documents available to the author of the citations should be examined to determine if there was discrimination in the creation of the citations for the awarding of medals.

A complete copy of the applicant’s submission is Exhibit G.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and SAF/MRBP and adopt their rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The Board notes the applicant’s disagreement with the advisory opinions and consistent recommendations to deny relief made to the Board; in particular, the applicant takes exception to references made to his performance reports and medical records.  However, notwithstanding these advisory opinions, the applicant has not provided evidence that supports his request.  Other than his own uncorroborated opinions and assertions, the applicant has not provided evidence the award recommending and approval officials did anything wrong.  The applicant is reminded that the burden of proof of being the victim of error or injustice rests with him.  The applicant’s decision to file an appeal over four decades after the alleged error or injustice occurred has placed himself and the Board at a disadvantage in determining what may have actually taken place.  The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for our country is noted; however, insufficient evidence has been presented to warrant corrective action.    Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 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-2014-04388 in Executive Session on 11 August 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Feb 15.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 25 Apr 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP dated 19 May 16.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 16.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jun 16.