RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02153 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her late father’s Silver Star (SS) be upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 6 Aug 45, when the “Enola Gay” (B-29 aircraft) landed on the Island of Tinian after dropping the first Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, the pilot (Army Air Corps) received the DSC and the former service member (then serving as a US Navy (USN) Captain), who aimed the bomb, received the SS and the remaining crew members received the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). However, the applicant believes that since all of the remaining crew members, other than the pilot, medals were upgraded to the SS; her late father’s medal should have been upgraded to the DSC based on his contributions to the mission. The applicant submits the following information to substantiate her claim: a. Her father assumed the most personal risk to life and limb by anyone on the mission that day, by volunteering to enter the bomb bay in flight at altitude to perform a task that had a real probability of ending his life with the slightest malfunction of the arming and detonation triggering mechanism. b. He decided that he would be the one to arm the bomb in flight because he had noticed that a number of B-29s overloaded carrying bombs to be dropped were crashing on takeoff. His heroic actions and personal risks were noted in a book written, by a former US Navy Admiral, command pilot, and Commander of Carrier units in Korea and Vietnam. He notes, by avoiding crashing with an armed atomic bomb, the former service member armed it at altitude, rather before takeoff, which adds to the “VOLUNTARY” element of danger that more than justifies award of the DSC. c. He and the pilot had equal significance in the mission because he was the senior officer specialist assigned and based on his familiarity with the design, development and tactical features of the bomb; was the only one that could make the call in the event that an emergency required a deviation to the tactical plans. d. His SS citation is incorrectly written as “Senior Military Technical Observer,” as he was the individual who armed the bomb in flight and was in charge of the decision for its expenditure, where and when or not to use it due to an emergency. Also, this was due to a lack of understanding of her father’s role on the historic flight and the “RISK” he took. "Senior Military Technical Observer" connotes an individual standing at a safe distance looking through binoculars and taking notes - hardly what her father did. e. He played a more significant role in the mission than the other aircrew; one comparable to the pilot, yet his award does not reflect that relative importance. He initially received the SS when the Enola Gay and the aircrew received the DFC; however, when all of the DFCs were upgraded to the SS, his award should have been upgraded to the DSC. This shows the service parochialism on the part of the medal awarding officer and pinpoints a lack of effort on his part to determine exactly who did what on the plane and awarding a medal commensurate with their level of risk and responsibility. f. The significance of his role in the “Manhattan Project” and the mission on the “Enola Gay” justifies upgrade of his SS to the DSC. Documents by the Commanding General of the Manhattan Project, suggests that he was not given due credit relative to the credit given to the pilot in comparison to his actual role on the mission. Another evidence of service parochialism and lack of comprehension of his role on the plane and the skills and risk required to arm the bomb at altitude. He was essentially in command and control of the operation; however, because of Air Force policy the pilot was always in command of the plane … but it was her father who had to approve the target selected; decide whether the bomb was functioning properly or not; personally check the bombardier sites to make certain the target and aiming point were as designated, and make any decisions involved in the event that it became impossible or unwise to attempt to reach the target. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because she has worked for 42 years, completed her Master’s Degree and spent seven years gathering documents to substantiate her claim on her father’s behalf. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the information provided by the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA), on 6 Aug 45, the pilot was awarded the DSC for his work on the Manhattan Project and his participation in the first atomic bomb mission on 6 Aug 45. On 9 Aug 45, while serving as a US Navy Captain, the deceased former service member was awarded the Silver Star, for his participation in the first atomic bomb mission on 6 Aug 45. This act was officially recognized by General Orders (GO) Number 68, Section VII, dated 19 Sep 45, read, for gallantry in action while participating in aerial flight against the Japanese Empire. The former service member was Senior Military Technical Observer on a B-29 aircraft which flew from a base in the Marianas Islands, 6 Aug 45 to drop on the city of Hiroshima, Japan, the first atomic bomb to be used in warfare. After takeoff in the very early morning hours, the plane set course as planned. The former service member then climbed into the bomb bay to load the powder charge, which had been postponed until well after takeoff to assure the safety of the island from which departure had been made. The job was completed without incident in forty minutes. As the airplane approached Japan, the risks grew greater, for the element of hazard from the unknown was ever present, since this was the first time this bomb, much more destructive than any in existence, had been released from an airplane. The possibilities of damage from anti-aircraft fire, enemy fighters, and unforeseen failures added to the risk; nor was it certain what effect the detonation would have upon the bomber and its occupants. Accompanying the mission to insure the bomb's correct use, the former service member kept careful watch until the plane was in its briefed position, and then approved release. At 0915 the switch was pressed, the bomb cleared safely, and fell towards its planned objective. They then departed with speed from the target area, traveling a safe distance before the blast occurred. By his high degree of skill in directing work with the atomic bomb, and great personal risk in placing the powder charge in the bomb during flight, the former service member distinguished himself, reflecting the highest credit on himself and the United States Navy. On 9 Aug 45, the remainder of the aircrew were bestowed the DFC for their actions on 6 Aug 45. On 4 Sep 45, the USN announces that the former service member was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal (DSM) for his participation in the Manhattan Project. The citation reads, for exceptionally meritorious service to the Government of the United States in a duty of great responsibility since May 1943, in connection with the development of the atomic bomb. Working with tireless energy, courage and foresight, the former service member applied himself to the tremendous task of transforming the theory of atomic fission into an effective weapon of war capable of being manufactured by American production methods at a time when the task appeared all but impossible. He applied his specialized knowledge in personally directing much of the design and development of the many components of the atomic bomb and in formulating and coordinating the plans for disseminating the manufacture of these components. In addition, he also organized much of the procedure required in assembling the components into an effective weapon under conditions of utmost secrecy. He devoted himself fully to these tasks from May 1943, to the initial atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima in which he took part. The former service member's organizational ability, brilliant professional skill and devotion to duty throughout the development and manufacture of the atomic bomb were outstanding and in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. Based on GO Number 69, Section I, dated 20 Sep 45, the remaining aircrew members, other than the pilot and the former service member, were awarded the SS, despite the presentation of the DFC earlier. This order does not rescind or revoke any earlier order of the DFC. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFHRA/RSA recommends denial for award of the DSC. RSA notes it appears the actions by the applicant's father was appropriately recognized with the award of the DSM by the US Navy and the SS by the Air Force (which was the upper limit of awards allowed by the legal constraints of the combatant commander, Twentieth Air Force). The DSC, the nation’s second highest decoration, was established by an Act of Congress on 9 Jul 18, and is awarded pursuant to section 8742 of Title 10 United States Code (70A statute 540). The decoration is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity after 6 Apr 17, distinguishes himself by extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy of the United States. The act of heroism performed must involve a risk of life so extraordinary as to set the person apart from his comrades. The Department of the Air Force is the awarding authority. This authority is delegated to major air commanders during wartime. All awards of the DSC to foreign persons are reserved to the Department of the Air Force. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record and the historical records, the basic facts of the applicant were verified in that her father, (then) a Captain, in the US Navy, was awarded the SS medal for his actions on the 6 Aug 45 Hiroshima atomic mission aboard the Enola Gay. The pilot, upon returning from this mission, was awarded the DSC. Four days later, the rest of the crew were recognized for their participation in the same mission by an awards ceremony held by the Twentieth Air Force's 313th Bombardment Wing, in which the wing commander, bestowed the Silver Star onto the former service member and the DFC to all other members of the Enola Gay aircrew. On 4 Sept 45, the former service member was also awarded the DSM by the US Navy for his participation and contributions to the atomic bomb development, the Manhattan Project. A few weeks later, the official orders for the decorations for the Enola Gay aircrew were finally published, but instead of one SS and numerous DFCs, the various orders sum up to where each member of the Enola Gay crew (except the pilot) are all recognized with a SS medal each. Further, the documented reasoning behind the awarding of the SS medal, vice the DSC and the allegations of bias, inter-service rivalry and blatant parochialism intended to intentionally, or unintentionally, snub the former service member could not be documented either through his official military personnel files, applicant-supplied documentation, or the holdings of the AFHRSA. However, RSA notes, if the Board wishes to consider its options under this situation, the following are offered for the Board's consideration: 1. Make no changes and leave the SS medal as is, as it only pertains to the 6 Aug 45 mission, and like the rest of the aircrew, the former service member performed his part flawlessly and was thusly recognized for it by the combatant commander under the authority he was delegated. 2. The USAF revoke the SS medals of the rest of the Enola Gay aircrew and instead, publish a new order bestowing the DFC awards to them as originally physically (but no orders ever published) done on 9 Aug 45 and allow the SS medal for the former service member to stand unchanged. In this way, ten individuals will have their SS awards reduced to a lesser award to maintain the prestige of the former service member’s SS for this mission. 3. The USAF revoke the SS medal for the former service member and award the DSM, 1st Oak Leaf Cluster. This would require a justification for the one mission and would be acting in the authority as the 1945 War Department. 4. The USAF revoke the SS medal and Department of the Navy revoke the DSM (this would require cooperation with the Department of the Navy) and bestow· the DSC to the former service member, by including the justification of his actions prior to the initial atomic bomb mission and (much like the pilot’s DSC, include the former service members' actions on the first atomic mission as part of the DSC justification.) In this option, the former service member loses two awards to gain one. The complete AFHRA/RSA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP concurs with the denial recommendation from AFHRA for the award of the DSC. MRBP notes the former service member received the DSM, awarded by the US Navy, for his accomplishments in support of the Manhattan Project. Nearly simultaneously, he received the SS from Twentieth Air Force for his efforts aboard the Enola Gay on 6 Aug 45. The SS is an appropriate recognition for this single- day event. His actions as one member of the crew were heroic, and essential to the success of the mission, but no more or less than every other member of the crew. It is not in any way derogatory towards the former service member that he received the same award as every other member of the crew, with the exception of the pilot, who was presented the DSC. As the AFHRA narrative states, the pilot received the DSC not solely for his actions aboard the Enola Gay, but for the months of training and preparation that culminated in mission success on 6 Aug 45. Lastly, the suggestion the former service member and the pilot were equals in responsibility on 6 Aug 45 is inaccurate. As the aircraft commander, the pilot was responsible for the totality of mission success, including aircraft launch and recovery, the several-thousand mile round trip, air navigation, weather avoidance, addressing enemy aircraft considerations, and also coordinating with the former service member on the technical aspects and status of the atomic bomb. The pilot's scope of responsibility was much larger, and that coupled with his months of preparation and training are deserving of his recognition with the DSC. The complete MRBP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant agrees with Option #4 from the evaluation by AFHRA. She notes this would require the revocation of the SS by the Department of the Air Force and the revocation of the DSM by the Department of the Navy and then awarding of the DSC by the Department of the Air Force. In this option, her father loses two awards to gain one. Further, she request that since the pilot’s DSC citation included both his work leading up to and including the flight of 6 Aug 45 (i.e. both non-combat and combat), that a proposed citation, enclosed with her submission be considered as a basis for the justification for her father receiving the DSC, just as the pilot was allowed to do in receiving his DSC She disagrees with the wording used in the AFHRA’s evaluation and states it would have been appropriate to have used the wording of “Senior Project Officer” versus “Senior Military Technical Observer.” Also, she does not believe the information referencing her father being promoted to Commodore (one star rank) soon after the 6 Aug 45 flight and the pilot not being promoted to Brigadier General until 1960 is relevant to her request. In a copy of a phone message dated 10 Aug 45 (4:45 p.m.) regarding awarding the DSM because of implied “dreadful mistake,” presumably because her father did not receive the higher decoration of the DSC, on par with pilot’s decoration, for both his work on the Manhattan Project and actions on the flight of 6 Aug 45. This phone message demonstrates that there was no plan in advance for giving the DSM as postulated in the evaluation. If there were such a plan, why would former Major General G., express such displeasure at her father receiving the lesser SS for his contribution? Furthermore, she notes the Fitness Report narrative of 10 Jan 45, written to a former Director of the Laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico. The former Director’s management of the Manhattan Project was instrumental in the successful development and deployment of the gun-type uranium bomb “Little Boy” and the plutonium implosion bomb “Fat Man.” As a supervisor of her father, his strong, positive assessment of the critical role he played in the Manhattan Project overall is unquestionable. The supported documents clearly show the close and significant relationship that existed in the critical need to provide a timely and efficient delivery of the best B-29's available. Her father’s Interservice relationship with the pilot and the former director, was at the highest level so as to produce the best and most efficient product available quickly. This also demonstrates the need for a DSC award to her father for his crucial work before the 6 Aug 45 flight, just as the pilot was allowed to do in his DSC citation. Lastly, she request a review of the letter from a former Vice Admiral, USN (retired) (deceased) of 25 Jul 11, in particular, that portion of the letter that emphasizes how the SS did not reflect the importance of her father’s role as the Principal Deputy to the former Director. Further, his role in the B- 29 “Enola Gay” mission has not been suitably recognized by the Army Air Forces award of the SS. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. The 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. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing this application over 68 years after that historic event, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which would have resulted in a favorable resolution on the merits. Thus, while this honorable Board salutes the former service member and his contributions to the success of the “Enola Gay” mission; 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-2014-02153 in Executive Session on 21 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFHRA/RSA, dated 17 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 14 Jan 15, w/atch. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 15. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Mar 15, 10 Mar 15, and 12 Mar 15, w/atchs.