RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03799 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His records be corrected to reflect his entitlement to the Officer Air Crew Member Badge (Administratively Corrected). 2. His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA), and the AFOUA w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) (Administratively Corrected). 3. His records be corrected to reflect his entitlement to the Distinguished Service Medal (DSM) for his actions in the recruitment of natives for intelligence efforts in Laos. 4. He be awarded the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) while assigned to Detachment 6, 1st Air Commando Wing (1ACW) during the period 13 Oct 64 to 10 Aug 66. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was recommended for award of the DSM by a major general, who served as the Director of Intelligence, Headquarters 2nd Air Division, for recruiting over 2000 Laotian hills tribesmen to serve as Ho Chi Ming Trail Watchers. This recommendation was submitted to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) in 2007 for consideration. In support of his request, the applicant provides four copies of DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records, several personal statements and excerpts from his military personnel records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 22 Aug 48 and was honorably discharged on 31 Aug 50. He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 Jan 51 in the grade of private for a period of three years. The applicant was discharged on 20 Mar 52, to accept a commission as a second lieutenant. He was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel and retired in that grade on 1 Jul 74. He served a total of 20 years and 3 days of total active service. His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, does not reflect award of the DSM or the PUC. The DSM is awarded to United States Service members who, while serving in any capacity of the Armed Forces of the United States, distinguish themselves by exceptional meritorious service to the Government in a duty of great responsibility. The basic award may be made for a completed period of outstanding service; however, restrict subsequent awards prior to retirement to extraordinary, specific achievements during one or more periods of service. The PUC is awarded to units of the Armed Forces of the United States and cobelligerent nations for extraordinary heroism in action against an armed enemy. This unit must have displayed such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions to have set it apart and above other units participating in the same campaign. On 10 Sep 10, AFPC/DPSIDR notified the applicant that Det 6, 1ACW was not awarded the PUC and that he is not entitled to the award. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the DSM. DPSIDRA states that based on what the applicant provided and the decision by SAFPC, they must recommend disapproval of his request for award of the DSM. DPSIDRA indicates that since the DSM is approved by the Secretary of the Air Force, the recommendation would have required endorsement by the major command or combined command commander. On 31 Jan 07, the SAFPC returned the submission to the recommending official without decision due to the recommendation not being signed by the required endorsement official. The complete AFPC/DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFPC/DPSIDRA advisory opinion infers that he recommended himself for award of the DSM. He was recommended for award of the DSM by Major General T----. The Board should look favorably on his request for the DSM since he was originally recommended for the award by Major General T----- for recruiting 2000 native hill tribesmen, who were used as trail watchers along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. He did not submit the recommendation himself. If the evidence he submitted is not sufficient for the Board to make a favorable decision, he may be able to provide a written statement from a Royal Laos Air Force officer. The applicant’s 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 regarding the applicant’s requests for award of the DSM and PUC. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, however; regarding the DSM, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Concerning the applicant’s request that he be awarded the PUC, we note the OPR notified the applicant that Det 6 1ACW was not awarded the PUC and he was not eligible for this award. After review of the available evidence, we find no persuasive evidence that he should be entitled to the PUC. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the applicant’s request for award of the DSM and PUC. 4. We note the applicant’s records were administratively corrected to reflect award of the AFOUA, the AFOUA w/1 OLC and the Officer Air Crew Member Badge. Therefore, in regard to these requests, no further action by this Board is necessary. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2008-03799 in Executive Session on 16 Mar 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. , Panel Chair Ms. , Member Mr. , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 27 Dec 08, 7 Feb 09, 11 May 09, and 15 Mar 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 29 Sep 09. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 09. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Nov 09. Panel Chair