RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-01673

XXXXXXXXXX					COUNSEL: NONE

							HEARING: YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Upgrade award of the Air Force Cross to the Medal of Honor.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The original decoration recommendation did not address two heroic actions which occurred during the mission on 6 Oct 69.  Furthermore, while the Air Force approved the award of the Medal of Honor, it was rejected by White House personnel because they could not acknowledge there were US troops in Laos.  

a.  An H-1 helicopter flew with the five H-3 helicopters on a combat mission, in order to rescue crewmen if necessary.  After the first helicopter was shot down, two A-1 fighters did what they could to neutralize the area.  The applicant requested the H-1 pilot attempt to rescue the downed crewmen, which was refused as the area was still too dangerous.  The applicant then made the decision to attempt a rescue knowing a successful recovery was slim.

b.  At sunset the H-53 rescue helicopter landed to recover the survivors.  The USAF crewmen were unable to enter the helicopter's rear deck because indigenous troops blocked entry.  The applicant led the men to gain entrance through the side door.  Unfortunately the lower section of the door was closed and locked with a mini gun on top.  An injured crewman could not climb in, so the applicant, though wounded himself, got down on his hands and knees to allow the injured crewman to use his back gain entrance.    

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a retired Air Force colonel.  

On 29 Nov 11, the Director of the AF Review Boards Agency, directed the applicant’s Air Force Cross citation, issued on 6 Oct 69, be corrected to show the “classified location in Southeast Asia” be amended to read “Muong Phine, Laos.”

On 8 Jan 15, the Secretary of the Air Force concurred with the recommendation of the Air Force Decorations Board, and disapproved the award of the Medal of Honor.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends denying the application.  

The applicant provided three witness statements in support of the two actions missing from the original nomination and subsequent upgrade request.  These additional facts do not constitute new evidence, and would have been known to all those involved.  Additionally, he waited almost 50 years to bring these actions to the fore, prejudicing the Air Force’s ability to review new contentions of older actions.  Finally, the additional information is neither persuasive, substantially material nor likely to have resulted in a different outcome.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 21 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 4 Sep 18.  The applicant contended only the squadron commander and copilot were involved in writing the decoration summary and not all information from the event was included.  As to the lateness of the request, after Richard L. Etchberger’s Air Force Cross was upgraded to the Medal of Honor in 2010, it seemed appropriate that the actions of the applicant warranted an upgrade.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was 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 or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of SAF/MRBP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:  

The applicant be informed that the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2018-01673 in Executive Session on 16 Oct 18:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:  Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 25 Apr 18.
Exhibit B:  Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Advisory opinion, SAF/MRBP, dated 10 Jul 18.
Exhibit D:  Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 21 Aug 18.
Exhibit E:  Applicant’s response, dated 4 Sep 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.