RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02176
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), 4th Oak Leaf Cluster (4OLC) be upgraded to a Silver Star (SS) Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 23 February 1969, while on a night mission over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, he destroyed 24 trucks, damaged 2 additional trucks, and silenced an anti-aircraft position, which was firing on his gunship.  After he completed the mission, a member of the General’s staff told him that the General wanted to award him and another pilot the SS Medal.  A few days later he was told the other pilot would receive the SS Medal and he would receive the DFC.  He has always felt cheated of the opportunity to wear the SS Medal by the actions of one person.  He believes he was unfairly awarded the DFC, 4OLC for heroism instead of the SS Medal.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, and a copy of the Citation To Accompany the Award of the Distinguished Flying Cross, 4OLC.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s military personnel records reflect that he served on active duty as a commissioned officer from 15 September 1950 through 30 June 1972 and retired in the grade of Colonel.  He served in Thailand from 29 October 1968 through 29 October 1969.  His DD Form 214, Report of Separation reflects award of the Bronze Star, Distinguished Flying Cross with 5 OLCs, Air Medal with 11 OLCs, Combat Readiness Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with two Bronze Service Stars, National Defense Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star, Vietnam Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star, Armed Forces Reserve Medal and the Korean Service Medal.

The applicant applied to upgrade the DFC, 3OLC to the Air Force Cross, which was denied as untimely in 1991.  He then requested under the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 (NDAA/96), that it be upgraded to the SS Medal, but was denied by the SAF Personnel Council in 1997.  The AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s previous request to have his DFC, 3OLC upgraded to the SS Medal for his action on 24 May 1969.

The Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant's request be denied.  DPPPR states the applicant feels verification of award recommendations by the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW) during the periods February/March 1969 will substantiate his claim for award of the SS Medal.  He has been denied on previous requests, and has not submitted any new information that can help to substantiate his claim.  The applicant was recommended for award of the DFC for heroism while participating in aerial flight on 23 February 1969; his actions at the time may not have met the criteria for any decoration higher than the DFC.

The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he regrets the recommendation of DPPPR to deny his request for upgrade of his DFC.  On the night previous to his February 1969 mission, the crew and another pilot destroyed 24 trucks.  The pilot was subsequently awarded the Silver Star for that mission.  He was told at the time, the 8th TFW would only submit a recommendation for one SS Medal and since the other pilot was the first to destroy 24 trucks, he would receive the higher award.  He does not believe any member of the 8th TFW Awards Review Board, being made up of fighter pilots, or any members of AFPC/DPPPR, is qualified to judge the dedication and heroism of a flight crew member flying in a large 4 engine aircraft, 4500 feet above the ground, night after night over the heavily defended Ho Chi Minh Trails.

His complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence presented and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that award of the Silver Star Medal is warranted.  His assertion that he was told that his commanding General wanted to award him the Silver Star is duly noted; however absent documentary evidence of an official recommendation we do not find his unsubstantiated assertions sufficiently persuasive.  While it appears that he participated in aerial combat operations in Vietnam and was appropriately awarded the DFC for his extroidinary achievement, he has provided no documentation to support his contention he should have been awarded the SS medal.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as basis for our conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence no considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-02176 in Executive Session on 8 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 29 May 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 23 Sep 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Oct 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Oct 04.