RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01019

	COUNSEL: 
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His application for the DFC (AF Form 642, Recommendation for Decoration) was erroneously not resolved through routine processes.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section, and placed on the USAF Reserve Retired List on 1 Feb 88.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C, D and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFHRA/RS recommends denying the application.  From the Air Force Historical Research Agency’s collection of official unit histories, there are no documents that specifically describe the actions of 24 Apr 71 (alleged date of mission warranting DFC), therefore, no fully informed opinion on the applicant’s actions can be made.  However, from the official unit histories and from his military personnel record, to include his DFC award submission, there is not enough evidence that the claimant’s actions on 24 Apr 71 rose to the level of meeting the criteria of being recognized for the DFC. The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application.  Although the applicant provided a copy of a recommendation for award of the DFC from his squadron commander, he has not provided a complete package (proposed citation, eyewitness statements, or Congressional support) for submissions for award of the DFC.  Additionally, AFPC/DP3SP refers to the AFHRA/RS opinion that the applicant’s recommendation for award of the DFC does not meet the requirements for award of the DFC.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.  

SAF/MRBP recommends denying the application.  The applicant’s records revealed he received three Air Medals (AM).  The second and third AMs covered the period encompassing the time of the acts covered in the DFC “Recommendation for Decoration.”  Service members cannot receive two medals for the same act.  The applicant’s records do not support a finding that the acts which are noted in the “Recommendation for Decoration” are different than that for which he received an Air Medal (AM) was intended to recognize.  Due to the limited records and the passage of time, it is difficult to conclusively determine if the applicant was to have received the DFC for an act separate than that which was recognized by the AM rendered for the same timeframe.  The applicant did not allege nor provide corroboration that might support a conclusion to the contrary.   The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 2 Feb 18 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

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  the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFHRA/RS, AFPC/DP3SP, and SAF/MRBP, and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  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).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting 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-2016-01019 in Executive Session on 3 Apr 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Mar 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, AFHRA/RS, w/atchs, dated 11 Aug 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 9 Nov 17.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBP, dated 31 Jan 18.  
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 2 Feb 18..

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9, for Docket Number BC-2016-01019.