RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00458

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

One of his Distinguished Flying Crosses (DFC) be upgraded to Silver Star (SS).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He flew two aerial missions on 31 Jan 68 and 21 Mar 68, for which he received DFCs.  However, based on recent events he believes one of his DFCs should be reviewed for an upgrade to the SS.  The applicant further noted that if he is awarded an upgrade to a SS the same should happen for the late Major J. B. who was the flight lead on the 31 Jan 68 mission.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibits A and A(a).

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a retired Air Force colonel.

Per Special Order G-2269 dated 27 Jul 68, the applicant was awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement for his participation in an aerial flight on 21 Mar 68.

Per Special Order G-1574 dated 21 Apr 69, the applicant was awarded the first Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) for the DFC for extraordinary achievement for his participation in an aerial flight on 31 Jan 68.

The applicant retired on 1 Aug 92 and was credited with 26 years, 9 months and 16 days of active service.

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 recommends denying the application.  The evidence of record reflected the applicant’s commander noted the applicant’s award recommendation never left the squadron as anything more than a DFC, which was approved.  Furthermore, the evidence indicated the award was not downgraded by Headquarters Seventh Air Force, but instead, informally downgraded by the squadron commander and sent to Seventh Air Force as a DFC recommendation.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application, noting there is no evidence showing the applicant was recommended for or awarded the SS.  For the applicant’s request to be considered for award of the SS, he needs to provide a signed recommendation for upgrade for the SS from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement, preferably from his direct chain of command, a proposed citation, a signed narrative citation, and eyewitness statements.

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the application.  A review of the applicant’s complete submission and evidence of record fails to support the applicant’s contentions that his actions in the two aerial mission in question arose to the level for an upgrade of his DFCs to the SS.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 8 Mar 18 for comment (Exhibit H), and the applicant replied on 8 Mar 18 by e-mail and on 12 Mar 18 by postal service.  In his responses, he states if the Board finds the 31 January mission does not qualify for the SS, he believes the 21 Mar 68 mission qualifies for the SS.  He believes if the 21 Mar 68 mission met the criteria for award of the SS, and if it had been submitted as a SS it would have been approved.  He has further noted that the other pilot for the mission, Major V, should also have his DFC upgraded to a SS.  The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

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 that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  While the Board is mindful and appreciative of the former member’s service to the Nation, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of Air Force offices of primary responsibility and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board notes the applicant’s concern for an upgrade for a DFC for the other pilots for the missions in question.  These members or interested parties must submit an application for correction to the AFBCMR.  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).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  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-2017-00458 in Executive Session on 7 Jun 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 13 Jan 17 and supplemental
	information, dated 27 Aug 17. 
Exhibit A(a):	Applicant Emails, dated 15 Jan 18, 25 Jan 18, 22 Feb 18 (w/atchs), and 
		8 Mar 18 (w/atch).
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFHRA/RS, w/atchs, dated 8 Jan 18.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 16 Feb 18.
Exhibit E.	Advisory opinion, SAFPC, dated 27 Feb 18. 
Exhibit F.	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 8 Mar 18.
Exhibit G:	Applicant’s response, dated 12 Mar 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2017-00458 required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.