RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01090 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster (AM w/1OLC) equates to 400 hours of operational flight time. Therefore, he qualifies for award of the DFC, which required 200 fours of operational flight time under the revised policy. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the documentation provided by AFHRA/RS: a.  The applicant served as a copilot in the Army Air Corps the India Burma Theater during WWII. b.  Under General Order 149, dated 27 Jun 45, the applicant was awarded the AM for participating in more than 250 hours of operational flight in a transport aircraft during the period 13 Feb 45 through 7 Jun 45. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The DFC may be awarded to any person, who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguished 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. The Revised Policy for Award of the DFC, Memorandum to Theater Commanders, dated 14 Aug 43, states in order to justify an award of the DFC for heroism, the heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action in the face of great danger above and beyond the line of duty while participating in aerial flight. 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. The applicant’s request is based on the number of sorties flown during World War II; however, he did not submit sufficient documentation to reasonably consider his request. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFHRA/RS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. When the applicant first arrived at his duty station, airmen could be recommended for the Air Medal (AM) after 150 operational hours and the DFC after 300 operational hours. However, on 1 Apr 45, before he attained his 150 hours, the policy changed. Under the new policy an individual was considered for award of the AM after completing 250 operational hours and for the DFC after 500 hours. Due to this policy change, the applicant did not qualify for the AM until 7 Jun 45. To obtain the DFC, the applicant would have had to fly 500 hours. No documentation was submitted indicating the applicant completed 500 operational flying hours. A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The DFC criteria in place for the China-Burma-India (CBI) Theater changed on 1 Apr 45 and required 500 hours for award of the DFC. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant achieved the threshold of 500 hours to earn the DFC before the end of the war. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Through a letter from his son, he contends that based upon the AFHRA/RS description of the requirements for award of flying decorations in WWII, the Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster he already has would have been awarded after completing 750 flying hours, and the DFC he is requesting would have been awarded to him after 500 flying hours—prior to award of the AM w/1OLC he received. He submitted a picture of what he alleges is his WWII uniform, which reflects the AM w/1OLC. He left the theater of operation on 14 Dec 45, after accumulating about 1000 hours. The fire which destroyed the military records should not be held against him (Exhibit G). FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01090 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 2 Jun 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 23 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, undated. Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 15. Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Feb 15, w/atchs.