ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01785 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Medal (AM) and the Purple Heart (PH) medal due to his service during World War II. ________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: By virtue of an application dated 27 Mar 10, the applicant requested he be awarded the AM, PH medal, Presidential Unit Citation (PUC), American Campaign Medal (ACM), Euro-African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (EAMECM), Prisoner of War (POW) Medal, and World War II Victory Medal (WWIIVM). He contended the Air Force neglected to award these decorations to him upon his discharge. The Air Force office of primary responsibility was able to substantiate the applicant’s claims to the ACM, EAMECM, POW Medal, and the WWIIVM and corrected his records administratively. On 26 Oct 10, the Board considered and denied his remaining requests, indicating the applicant had failed to meet his burden of proof as he had not provided sufficient documentary evidence of his entitlement to the AM, PUC, or PH Medal. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s case, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E (with Exhibits A through D). In a letter dated 5 Feb 11, the applicant requests reconsideration of his requests for the AM and PH Medal based on his belief the Board erred when making their determination the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence. Specifically, the Board erred by giving credence to information reflected in his military personnel records indicating he had only flown three combat missions in the face of the evidence he provided showing he had actually flown eight combat missions. The Board inappropriately discounted this evidence, reports from the 44th Bomb Group’s 8th Air Force database, based on the false belief the data was derived from an unofficial source. On the contrary, these reports are derived from the 44th Bomb Group Veterans Association database which is an online library preservation site of actual Eighth Air Force records from WWII. Furthermore, the applicant argues the noticeable omission of any information related to his status as a POW is further evidence his records were erroneous and incomplete and should not have been given credence over the evidence provided. As for his claim related to the PH Medal, the applicant argues that he was injured when his plane crashed and therefore should have been awarded the PH Medal. He argues that two of the crew of his aircraft passed away from hypothermia and were awarded the PH Medal. As such, he should be awarded the PH Medal as he too suffered the effects of hypothermia and other injuries, but because he was fortunate enough to survive, he was not awarded the PH Medal. In support of his request, the applicant provides a statement of counsel and copies of additional reports from the 44th Bomb Group Veterans Association web site and three supporting statements. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we remain unconvinced the applicant has been a victim of an error or injustice. We have previously determined the applicant had not met his burden of proof in demonstrating he was the victim of an error or injustice warranting award of the AM and PH Medal. While the applicant’s contentions are duly noted, his latest submission has not persuaded us otherwise. Counsel argues the Board erred when denying the applicant’s request for the AM in the face of convincing evidence in the form of reports from the 44th Bomb Group Veterans Association database, indicating that this database is a library repository derived from actual WWII records during the matter under review. Nevertheless, we do not find these reports, in and of themselves, sufficient to convince us to recommend granting the requested relief. In this respect, we note these reports are not actual records, but are apparently derived from manual data inputs which Counsel contends were based on the original records. While we have no reason to question Counsel’s integrity in the matter, we also have no way of ascertaining with any certainty the fidelity of the underlying data from which these reports are generated. We also note Counsel’s contention the Board previously relied on these reports in granting several similar cases; however, notwithstanding our decisions in those cases, we do not believe it appropriate to recommend granting relief based on a derived source, especially when the actual records apparently still exist. In this respect, we note the supporting statement from the former Commandant of the Army War College and Counsel’s own statement indicating the records from which the data base was built were donated to the Army War College for historical preservation. Therefore, in the face of the revelation these records exist and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the applicant’s request for award of the AM. 2. As for his request related to the PH Medal, we find that it does not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board as the applicant has provided no new relevant evidence; and reconsideration is authorized only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the application was originally submitted. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; 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-2010-01785 in Executive Session on 6 Dec 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 19 Nov 10, w/Exhibits A through D. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 5 Feb 11, w/atchs. Panel Chair