RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00454 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be amended to reflect that he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster (DFC w/1 BOLC). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He flew five missions during the 1972 Christmas raids over Hanoi and Haiphong. Other members of his crew received award of the DFC but he did not receive his until 10 May 2001. The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application as he was awarded the DFC in 2001 and has been trying to get it added since then. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214; letters from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) dated 20 January 2014 and 10 May 2011 and a letter from his Congressman dated 12 June 2001. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 June 1969, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and was honorably released on 26 August 1974. 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. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The documentation provided by the applicant does not support award of the DFC w/1 BOLC to reasonably consider his request. In order to reasonably consider the applicant’s request, he needs to submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement, preferably from someone within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation with inclusive dates, and eyewitness statements. It appears as though the DFC mailed to the applicant in 2001 was merely a replacement medal and not an additional award. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff. The applicant contends his request through his Congressman in 2001 resulted in being awarded the DFC w/1 BOLC; however, a letter from the NPRC to his Congressman, on behalf of the applicant, states they verified entitlement to the requested medals and awards on the DA Form 1577, Authorization for Issuance of Awards, which includes a basic award of the DFC but no annotation of a DFC w/1 BOLC. In 2011, DPSID received a request from the applicant through the NPRC for award of the RVGNC w/P; the DFC w/V and 1 BOLC. On 12 July 2011, DPSID replied to the applicant that they were able to verify award of the RVNGC w/P but not the DFC w/V and 1 BOLC and provided the applicant with requirements to pursue the award. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFHRA/RS recommends denial. There appears to have been no injustice perpetrated against the applicant. The applicant was awarded the Air Medal (AM) w/ 9 OLCs by an Eighth Air Force Special Order (G-353) dated 30 July 1973 for his actions on 26 December 1972. If the applicant wishes to have the AM w/ 9 OLC reconsidered and upgraded to a DFC, there are procedures in place to do so as outlined in the AFPC/DPSID evaluation. The applicant appears to have taken a rumor concerning the awarding criteria of DFCs for the Christmas bombings of Hanoi in 1972 as fact. In actuality, the rumor is false and no such award policy as prescribed by the applicant was ever promulgated. A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation, w/atch, is at Exhibit D. SAF/MRBP recommends denial and concurs with the recommendations of AFPC/DPSID and AFHRA/RS. The applicant appears to have confused his receipt of a replacement DFC from earlier missions as the awarding of a subsequent DFC when that is not the case. Additionally, there is no evidence to support that any aircrew received a DFC for the Christmas raid missions. On the contrary, the applicant received an AM for his participation in general during this period. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He knows crew members who received a DFC for five missions flown in the ten day Christmas raids and provides a transcript from his flight on 19 December 1972. This was the most heavily defended airspace in the history of aviation. He cannot tell how many crews were flying all the missions but only a few flew five missions in those 10 days of the Christmas raids. Several planes and crews were lost during this time. As the transcript shows there were missiles and Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) everywhere and anyone flying through it showed exceptional and outstanding airmanship to survive the combat five times. Despite direct attack from numerous heavy AAA and multiple missiles aimed at them, they were able to perform their duties and place ordnance on targets. The entire crew deserves award of the DFC for these missions. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. While the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations is noted, he has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the AF OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting any of the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00454 in Executive Session on 8 July 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 January 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 June 2014. Exhibit D. Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 30 April 2015, w/atch. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 21 May 2015. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 June 2015. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.