RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04289 COUNSEL: NONE (DECEASED) HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His father (decedent) be entitled to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The decedent’s chain of command recommended him for award of the DFC, which is not reflected in his records. The applicant provides a lengthy resume of the decedent’s history to include his personal and family background, military service, service in Southeast Asia and recovery efforts. He also cites numerous AFBCMR cases not as binding precedent but rather as illustrations to help the Board in making their decision. The applicant does not seek to have the Board take action contrary to any law or regulation. Rather, he merely seeks to have the decedent’s record corrected to show that he distinguished himself by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight. The narrative of the decedent’s Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) is the basis of this application. It contains a statement that the decedent had been recommended for the DFC and the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters. Four individuals signed and endorsed this OER. This application meets the Board's standard in that it contains sufficient evidence to remove an injustice in the decedent’s record. The applicant respectfully requests that the Board serve justice and effectuate the recommendations of four senior, experienced combat fighter pilots, each of whom had received the DFC, by awarding the decedent the DFC for extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight over North Vietnam. Any doubt in the consideration of this case should be resolved in the decedent’s favor. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal memorandum, copies of the decedent’s DD Form 398, Statement of Personal History; DD Form 4, Enlistment Record – Armed Forces of the United States; DD Form 13, Statement of Service; AF Form 77, Company Grade Officer Effectiveness Report (OER); DD Form 1300, Report of Casualty; Special Orders, Aeronautical Orders, aircrew roster, individual flight records, Air Medal citations, photographs, and various other documents related to his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the DD Form 1300 prepared on 17 November 1973, the decedent was officially reported missing in action on 24 August 1968. He continued in this status until 8 November 1973, the date death is presumed to have occurred. THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, they were unable to verify award of the DFC. The DFC may be awarded to any persons who, after 6 April 1917, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguish 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. Revised Policy for Award of the DFC, 14 August 1943, Memorandum to Theater Commanders, states in order to justify an award of the DFC for heroism, the heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action in the face of great danger above and beyond the line of duty while participating in aerial flight. To warrant an award of the DFC for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight, the accomplished must be so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set him apart from his comrades who have not been so recognized. Under the policy stated above, no award of the DFC will be made on the basis of hours or missions. In accordance with Headquarters Army Air Forces Memorandum dated 21 January 1945; under the revised policy for award of the DFC the so-called “routine or score card” basis of award of the DFC was officially prohibited as of 14 August 1943. The applicant's OER for the period 30 April 1969 thru 24 August 1968, states, "...has resulted in his being recommended for the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters." In accordance with the Congressional Inquiry dated 19 September 2012, the decedent’s brothers have previously requested award of the DFC on his behalf using the same OER mentioned above; however, the Congressional response declared the OER alone is not an official award recommendation from the recommending official. There is no evidence in the decedent’s record, nor did the applicant present any evidence to support award of the DFC. The applicant provided a proposed citation; however, it does not identify any specific reasons such as a single act of heroism or extraordinary achievement to justify award of the DFC. Therefore, there is insufficient documentation to reasonably consider the applicant's request. Furthermore, the application is untimely and should be disapproved on that basis. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DoD Manual 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff, and/or the War Department. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFHRA/RS recommends denial. Although the OER shows intent, there is no documentation found in the AFHRA collection of official unit histories, or in any of the published orders used to announce individual awards by Headquarters Seventh Air Force (Special Orders) in all of 1968 that the local squadron followed through in submitting a DFC award package for the decedent. Moreover, the DFC recommendation supplied by the applicant does not provide a specific act of heroism or extraordinary achievement warranting the award of the DFC. The complete RS evaluation is at Exhibit D. SAF/MRBP recommends denial and concurs with the DPSID and AFHRA advisories to disapprove award of the DFC. After review of the decedent’s records, submitted supporting documents, and review of the DFC criteria, there is a lack of evidence of the extraordinary achievement. Therefore there is not sufficient justification or documentation to support award of the DFC. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. The DPSID advisory opinion wrongly concludes: "To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DoDM 1348.33, the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff, and/or the War Department. His request is fully consistent with the DFC criteria that are set in law (and implemented in Air Force Instruction by order of the Secretary). Second, he is not aware of any criteria that the Chief of Staff may have established concerning the DFC. Third, DoDM 1348.33 has no criteria with regard to the DFC. Fourth, any criteria set by the War Department are just not applicable to this case. It is difficult to accept the position that there is no official record showing the recommendation of a DFC. The OER is clearly an official record, and it clearly states that the decedent had been recommended for a DFC. This case is not like others where the applicant seeks the award of a DFC where the only evidence was the applicant's statement that he was told by his commander that he would be recommended for a DFC. The advisory opinion also talks about "requirements," namely a signed recommendation from someone, preferably who has firsthand knowledge of the applicant's act/achievement. He is not aware that there are any such "requirements." Such a position with regard to "requirements" seems to be contrary to the broad authority of the Board to affect justice. In any event, such a "requirement" of firsthand knowledge is more apt where there is no evidence in an applicant’s personnel file that a recommendation for a DFC has been made. That is not the case here. The decedent was recommended for the DFC as reflected in his OER. These uncontroverted facts plus the Board's broad discretionary authority permit the award of the DFC in this case. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G. 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 of record and the OER submitted in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded that relief is warranted. While the applicant contentions are noted, we do not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rational provided by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s personal sacrifice and unselfish service to his country is noted and our decision in no way lessens our regard for his service. However, without substantial documentation to support award of the DFC, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 this application in Executive Session on 8 July 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2013-04289: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 August 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 January 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 31 January 2014. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 24 March 2014. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 March 2014. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated.