DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 92-00 109 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code (70A Stat 116),  it is directed that: 

. .  

records  of the  Department  of the  Air  Force  relating to 
corrected to  show that  he was awarded the Distinguished Flying 

icipating in aerial flight on 22 March 1944, over Berlin, Germany. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  92-00109 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

RESUME 0 F CASE: 
On 1 6   April 1992, the Board considered applicant's requests that 
he  be  awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross  (DFC).  The Board 
found the application untimely filed and was not persuaded that 
the  record  raised  issues of  error  or  injustice  which  required 
resolution  on  the  merits.  A  complete  copy  of  the  Record  of 
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G. 

In  a  letter,  dated  18  March  1998,  the  applicant  provided 
additional  documentation  and  requested  reconsideration  of  the 
application. 
Applicant's  complete  submission  is  attached  at 
Exhibit H. 

The  application  has  been  reopened  for  reconsideration  on  the 
merits of the case. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was not  timely filed; however, it  is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
3 .   Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable  error or injustice. After 
thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation, we believe the 
applicant  has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  The 
applicant contends that he  should be  awarded the DFC for saving 
the  life  of  a  fellow crew member  on  22 March  1944 while  on  a 
bombing mission over Berlin, Germany.  In support of his request, 
the applicant has provided a statement from the individual whose 
life  he  saved. 
In  view  of  this  statement,  and  given  the 
applicant's heroic actions on 22 March 1944, we believe he should 
be  awarded  the  DFC  for  heroism.  Therefore, we  recommend  his 
records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be  corrected to show that he was awarded 
the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism while participating in 
aerial flight on 22 March 1944, over Berlin, Germany. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 18 August  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair 
Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member 
Ms. Ann. L. Heidig, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner  (without vote) 

All  members voted  to correct  the  records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, 

Record of Proceedings, dated 27 Apr 92, w/atchs. 

C. SAUNDERS 

2 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE ,MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  92-00109 
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

'2i7  /PR 

I@? 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). 

- 

:

m

z 

o

r

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
Due to his heroism on 22 March 1944, he should be awarded the DFC. 
The  applicant has provided a statement  f
the  bombardier  of  his former  crew. 
recommends  the 
applicant  for award of  the DFC based M
c
act of saving 
that  on 22 March  1944,  while on a 
his  life.-states 
bombing  mission over  Berlin, Germany,  in a B-24,  they were shot 
down,  Their aircraft was hit by  several direct flak bursts thereby 
causing  them  to  have a mid-air  collision with  another B-24.  A 
propeller  struck the  nose turret  of the plane and  left him  (the 
bombardier)  trapped inside with a  paralyzed left leg and a frozen 
hand.  The  electrical and manual controls  to the turret would not 
work, therefore, he was unable to get out.  The applicant pried the 
turret door open, and then grasping him by  the shoulders pulled him 
from  the  wreckage.  The  applicant  then  helped  him put  on his 
parachute  and crawl to  the bomb bay to  escape the aircraft.  Mr. 
Smith  believes that without  the applicant's  assistance, he would 
not be alive today. 
applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

i

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant  was  commissioned  a second lieutenant  in  the Army Air 
Corps and entered active duty on 13 November 1943. 
He  was assigned  to the  466th  Bombardment  Group  as  a navigator 
aboard a B-24. 

1 

6 

On  22 March  1944, while  on a  bombing mission  over  Berlin, the 
aircraft was shot down.  Prior to bailing out, the applicant pulled 
the  bombardier  from his  damaged  turret, helped  him put  on his 
parachute and crawl to the bomb bay to exit the aircraft. 
He  was captured  by  the Germans  and interned  in POW  camps until 
29 April 1945. 
The  DFC is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement during 
aerial  flight.  A written recommendation  is required to allow for 
consideration of a decoration.  The recommendation may be submitted 
by  anyone, except  the member  being  recommended, with  firsthand 
knowledge  of  the  member's  accomplishments.  Also,  it  must be 
submitted  within two years of  the member's accomplishments.  Acts 
or  achievements performed between  7 December 1941 and 2 September 
1945  were allowed to be recognized beyond the two year limit until 
2  May 1951.  The only  other provision for awards  to be submitted 
beyond the two year time limit is in the event the award is lost or 
not  acted on due to an error.  In this case, the individual making 
the  recommendation must  certify the award was  placed in channels 
within the time limit but was lost or not acted upon due to error. 

AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 
The  Chief, Recognition Programs Branch (AFMPWDPMASA) reviewed the 
application  and  states  that  while  they  can  understand  the 
applicant's  desire to receive  the DFC, they  are bound by  the law 
which  clearly defines the procedures required for its award.  They 
note  that the applicant  admits he  was never recommended  for the 
DFC.  Therefore,  they  feel he is  not entitled  to the award.  In 
addition,  the  time limitations  established by  law exist because 
memories  fade  with  time and  it is  hard to  reconstruct  events 
accurately.  In  view  of the above,  they recommend  denial of the 
application.  They  also note  that if the Board  decides to ignore 
the  statutory requirements pertaining  to a written recommendation 
and  the time limits pertinent to awards, the applicant should only 
be  awarded the DFC. A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is 
attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air Staff evaluation and states that the 
reason  in the delay in the decoration  recommendation is that none 
of  his  crew were  debriefed  after  they  were  repatriated  from 
German  POW  c 
no  one  had  any  knowledge  of 
decorations. 
, a navigator who completed his tour 
of  duty with the 466th Bomb Group, has stated under oath, that "If 

2 

the  act  of heroism  had taken  lace  over England  and  the crew 
properly  debriefed,  I am sure A o u l d  have  been awarded a 
decoration  right then.  Prior to the  event, they had no briefings 
concerning  the  protocol  to  be  followed  for eligibility  for 
decorations.  None  had been  recommended since  it was their first 
mission. 
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD 
1.  The  application  was not  filed within  three years  after the 
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or reasonably could have 
been  discovered,  as required  by  Section  1552, Title  10, United 
States Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force Regulation 31-3. 
2.  Paragraph  b of 10 USC  1552 permits us,  in our discretion, to 
excuse  untimely  filing  in the  interest  of  justice.  We  have 
carefully  reviewed applicant's  submission and  the entire record, 
and  we do  not find  a sufficient  basis  to  excuse the  untimely 
filing  of  this  application.  The  applicant  has  not shown  a 
plausible  reason  for delay  in filing,  and we are  not persuaded 
error or injustice which require 
that 
resolution  on the merits  at this time.  Accordingly,  we conclude 
that  it would  not be  in the interest  of  justice to  excuse the 
untimely filing of the application. 

the record raises issues of 

DECISION OF THE BOARD: 
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 this application in 
Executive  Session  on  16  April  1992, under  the  provisions  of 
paragraph 9, AFR  31-3, dated 31 May  1985: 

Mr. G. Hammond Myers, 111, Panel Chairman 
Mr. C. Ronald Hovell, Member 
Mr. Abner C. Young, Member 

3 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jan 92. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, Mr. Smith, dated 2  Mar 92. 

DD Form 149, dated 24  Jun 91, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFMPWDPMASA, dated  3  Jan 92,  w/atch. 
Letter, Congressman Panetta, dated 6 Feb 92, 
w/atchs. 

G. HAMMOND MJ~ERs, 1111 
Panel Chairman 

4