RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2021-01950

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

 	HEARING REQUESTED:  YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His Silver Star (SS) (First Oak Leaf Cluster) be upgraded to the Air Force Cross (AFC).

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

There is considerable additional information regarding the overall impact of the mission he flew, for which he was awarded the SS.  The additional evidence details the immediate results of his actions, as well as the long term protection of American and allied assets south of the demilitarized zone.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel (O-5).

The applicant was awarded the SS for gallantry in connection with military operations against an opposing armed force as an F-4D aircraft commander in Southeast Asia on 16 Feb 72.  

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFMAN 36-2806, Awards and Memorialization Program.  The AFC is awarded to any person, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force, who distinguishes himself by extraordinary heroism, not justifying award of a Medal of Honor (MOH): while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the MOH, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

SAF/MRBP recommends denying the application.  After a thorough review of the original submission to the Air Force Decoration Board (AFDB) as well as the complete submission to the AFBCMR, they were not convinced that the new evidence is sufficient to conclude the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) represents an error or injustice. 

On 18 Oct 19, his Congressional Representative submitted a request on behalf of the applicant and his navigator to upgrade the SS they received for the mission in question to the AFC.  According to the submission, the applicant and his navigator led an airstrike deep inside enemy territory where they were tasked with marking targets for eventual strikes to follow.  They came under intense anti-aircraft fire during this mission. After avoiding two surface to air missiles, they continued to mark targets for two hours.  A third missile could not be avoided and the aircraft took a disabling hit forcing both he and his navigator to eject into enemy territory where both members were taken captive and held as prisoners of war for just over a year. 

On 31 Aug 20, the AFDB unanimously concluded that while the actions of both members were heroic, their actions did not meet the criteria for the AFC.  The board determined that the evidence provided was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity that the decision to award the SS to both members was made in good faith, was appropriate to the circumstances, and was bestowed in accordance with the criteria of the SS.  The AFDB therefore recommended to the SecAF that both requests be denied.  On 19 Jan 21, after a thorough consideration of all the evidence, the SecAF agreed with the recommendation and disapproved both requests.

In support of his AFBCMR request, the applicant provides 18 pages of documentation, and only five of those documents were not considered by the AFDB or the SecAF in denying the previous request.  The new documents include the applicant’s expanded personal statement, a supporting statement from his navigator, an excerpt from what appears to be an unidentified declassified document, an excerpt from what appears to be an unidentified intelligence report, and a copy of message traffic.  The following is an analysis of these documents: 

	1.  The applicant’s expanded personal statement.  This is not new evidence, but is 	cumulative to the submission provided to the AFDB.  The original submission to the 	AFDB included a similar expanded personal statement. 

	2. Supporting statement from the applicant’s navigator. As indicated, the AFDB 	considered upgrade requests from both the applicant and his navigator, who authored this 	statement. 

	3.  Excerpt from the unidentified declassified document, excerpt from the unidentified 	intelligence report, and message traffic.  These documents appear to describe the 	activities of the enemy on the ground during and after the mission in question.  They 	indicate that an unidentified F-4 aircraft was shot down and the crew were taken prisoner.  	However, the documents do not provide any information about the accomplishments of 	the applicant and his navigator that were unknown to those who approved the SS for both 	members, or by the AFDB and SecAF when the applicant’s request for an upgrade was 	denied. 

While the applicant contends the information provided constitutes significant additional information, the five new documents submitted are just not sufficient to conclude that the recommendation by the AFDB and subsequent decision by the SecAF constitutes an error or injustice.  A majority of the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his request to the AFBCMR were considered by the AFDB and SecAF when the original decision was made. The AFDB had both complete recommendations, as well as a report from the Air Force Historical Research Agency when it deliberated whether the actions of the applicant and his navigator rose to the level of the AFC.  Ultimately, the AFDB found the evidence provided was insufficient to warrant an upgrade and the SecAF disapproved the request. With five new documents, the applicant is asking the AFBCMR to substitute its judgement for that of the SecAF, as well as officials who originally recommended and approved the SS to the applicant and his navigator in real time.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 15 Feb 22 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of SAF/MRBP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board finds award of the SS appropriate for the applicant’s heroic actions and does not find the evidence provided sufficient to warrant upgrade to the AFC.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2021-01950 in Executive Session on 17 Mar 22:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 12 May 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, excluding relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, SAF/MRBP, w/atchs, dated 10 Feb 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 15 Feb 22.

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