RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00399

	COUNSEL: 
	
  	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect:

He completed the Improved Launch Control System course in 1988. (ADMINSTRATIVELY CORRECTED) 

He was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Medal. (ADMINSTRATIVELY CORRECTED) 

His Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) (Third Oak Leaf Cluster) be upgraded to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

He was awarded the Nuclear Deterrence Operations Service Medal (NDOSM).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His actions between 23 Mar 94 and 13 Sep 94 warrant a higher award of the DFC rather than the AAM.  During that period, he flew 22 test flights in intentional engine-out configurations.  These missions were deemed extremely hazardous.  He believes the prejudicial view of Air Force leadership prevented him from receiving the DFC.  He contends leadership only recognized those in combat roles during that period. 

He served as a Missile Combat Crew Commander at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana.  He later served as personal advisor to the Commander in Chief US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) and then as an Airborne Missileer aboard the EC-135 Airborne Command Post from May 97 through Mar 98.  This service qualifies him for the NDOSM.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel.  Documentation submitted by the applicant reflects he was awarded the AAM for the period of 7 Aug 92 to 4 May 94 for airmanship and courage exhibited during the successful accomplishment of important flight test missions under extremely hazardous flight conditions.  He was awarded the AAM, First Oak Leaf Cluster for the period of 8 May 94 to 22 Aug 95 for airmanship and courage exhibited in the successful completion of important flight test missions under extremely hazardous flight conditions.  Additionally, he was awarded the Aerial Achievement Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster, for the period of 3 Sep 97 through 3 Sep 98 for the airmanship he demonstrated upon the successful completion of numerous Airborne Command Post missions with outstanding proficiency.  

 According to his master personnel record, he served as the Airborne Command Post Operations Officer/Airborne Launch Control System Officer with USSTRATCOM from May 97 through Mar 98.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C, D, G and H.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  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 or 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.  There was no evidence submitted to support the applicant’s previously awarded Aerial Achievement Medal was recommended for an upgrade to the Distinguished Flying Cross.

The NDOSM was authorized on 27 May 14 to recognize direct support to nuclear deterrence operations.  This medal may be awarded (retroactively from 27 Dec 91) to airmen who, while assigned, attached, deployed or mobilized to a unit (Wing, Center or below), provided support to the Nuclear Enterprise for 120 consecutive or 179 nonconsecutive days and were subjected to a Nuclear Inspection, or performed duties in nuclear operations.  There is no evidence the applicant was assigned, attached, deployed or mobilized to a unit (Wing, Center or below) which provided support to the Nuclear Enterprise as required for this award.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP concurs with the recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP to deny the applicant’s request to upgrade his AAM to the DFC.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 15 Mar 17 for comment (Exhibit E), and the applicant replied on 24 Mar 17.  In his response, the applicant contended that while he was not technically assigned, attached, deployed or mobilized to a unit (Wing, center or below), he was assigned to fly aboard the ABNCP which was under PRP restrictions.  He held the same Air Force Specialty Code as missile launch officers at the Wing level, a requirement for the “N” device on the NDOSM. 

While he has not submitted witness statements or documentation from his chain of command recommending his AAM be upgraded to the DFC, he has submitted what he considers proof of the events from witnesses, participants and performance reports that allows the Board to make the determination as to whether or not the upgrade is warranted.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  DP3SP could not verify the applicant’s entitlement to the award of the DFC or the NDOSM.  

The applicant provided an eyewitness statement to support his request for the DFC upgrade and a narrative citation as outlined in accordance with Title 10 United States Code 1130.  He did not submit a reconstructed award recommendation from someone in his chain of command at the time of the act or achievement to support the upgrade of AAM to the DFC.  Additionally, the applicant’s request must be referred to the Secretary of the Air Force by a Member of Congress for consideration.

The applicant does not qualify for the NDOSM.  Air Force Instruction 36-2803, 15 Aug 94, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program, notes only those airman who, while assigned, attached, deployed or mobilized to a unit (wing, center or below) qualify for the NDOSM.  There is no evidence the applicant was assigned, attached, deployed or mobilized to a unit (wing, center or below) the basic criteria for this award.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit G.

AFHRA/RS does not make a recommendation.  The Congress created the DFC as an aviator award for “heroism and outstanding achievement.”  The DFC could be awarded to anyone serving in the Army Air Corps, Navy or Marine Corps after 6 Apr 17.  The Army Air Corps’ DFCs were awarded for making groundbreaking or difficult flights or furthering technical advances in aviation.  Some of the recipients of these awards performed acts similar to those performed by the applicant.   

AFI 36-2803, established the DFC criteria as “…while participating in aerial flight. Heroism or achievement must be entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine.  Not awarded for sustained operation activities and flight.”  AFHRA/RS submitted examples of the award of the DFC to assist the Board in its determination of whether or not the applicant’s actions were “entirely distinctive, involving operations that were not routine.  Not awarded for sustained operations activities and flights.”  AFHRA/RS notes the applicant’s actions/achievements, sustained over 114 days, do not meet the conditions set out in the 1994 version of AFI 36-2802 [sic] for the award of the DFC.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit H.”

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 22 Sep 17 for comment (Exhibit I), and the applicant replied on 3 Oct 17.  In his response, the applicant contended the opinion provided by AFHRA/RS supports his claim that his actions were “entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine.”  He contends “sustained” which means “for an extended period of time” is relative.  He also does not believe his actions were routine nor should they be considered sustained due to the isolated nature of the tests.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit J.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  While the applicant contends his actions were isolated and hazardous in nature, we do not believe the actions rise to the level of that warrants the award of the DFC.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, other than the administrative corrections noted the Board recommends against any further corrections of the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-00399 in Executive Session on 22 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 25 Jan 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 13 Jan 17.
Exhibit D.	Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBP, undated.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 15 Mar 17.
Exhibit F:	Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 24 Mar 17.
Exhibit G:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 5 Jul 17.
Exhibit H:	Advisory opinion, AFHRA, w/atch, dated 16 Aug 17.
Exhibit I:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 15 Mar 17.
Exhibit J:	Applicant’s response, dated 3 Oct 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.