RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00463 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Block 13, Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, be corrected to add the words “with Valor” to his Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He DFC should include the words “with Valor” because it was awarded for a combat mission in Vietnam. During the mission in question they flew against the railroad yards in Lang Dang, North Vietnam. His home burned to the ground in September 2000, all of his personal papers, to include the citation for his DFC was lost. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 28 Sep 64, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. The applicant was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight as a B-52G Radar navigator over Lang Dang, North Vietnam on 27 December 1972. On 30 Sep 85, the applicant retired and was credited with 21 years and 03 days of active service. 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 Exhibits C, D, and 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 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguished 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. On 3 Jun 04, the Valor device was authorized for wear on the DFC awarded for heroism on or after 18 Sep 47. Service members awarded the DFC for heroism prior to 21 Oct 04 are authorized to wear the “V” device on their service ribbon; however, will not have decoration elements or separation documents re-accomplished to reflect “with Valor.” This advisor located within the applicant’s records a copy of his DFC citation; which was awarded for extraordinary achievement not heroism; therefore, he is not eligible to have his awarded DFC reflect “with Valor.” Due to the applicant’s contention that his home burned down and his DFC citation was lost, they are pleased to provide him a re-accomplished citation. Additionally, it was determined the below Air Force Medal should have been awarded during his service and is not reflected in his records: - Korean Defense Service Medal Upon final Board decision, the applicant’s official military personnel records will be administratively corrected. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFHRA/RS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. During the Vietnam War, much like in the previous conflicts of World War II and the Korean War, the DFC was bestowed for two reasons, either recognition for extraordinary achievement or for an act of heroism. The applicant’s citation specifically states his award is recognizing his “…extraordinary achievement…”. Since the citation does not state that his award was for heroism, the “V for Valor” device is not appropriate. A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation is at Exhibit D. SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. This advisor concurs with the recommendation of both AFPC/DPSID and AFHRA/RS. The applicant was clearly awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement and therefore is not eligible for “with Valor” device. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Dec 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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; 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 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-2015-00463 in Executive Session on 7 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan 15. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 10 Aug 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 28 Aug 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 24 Nov 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 15.