ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01967
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished Flying
Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF THE CASE:
The applicant is a former flight officer in the Air Corps who was
honorably discharged on 2 Feb 46.
On 17 Feb 98, the Board considered and denied an application for
correction of military records pertaining to the subject applicant, in
which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of
the DFC, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), and the China
Service Medal (see AFBCMR 97-01967), with Exhibits A through D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told that he would be recommended for the DFC. However, flying
in supplies to support their advancing troops became of far more
importance. He believes that his record shows he earned the DFC for
his World War II combat service.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copies of a general
order and an appointment order, and a statement from his commanding
officer.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. The statement provided by
the applicant’s commander was sufficient to convince a majority of the
Board that the applicant’s service during the period in question did
warrant award of the DFC. In view of the above, and in recognition of
the applicant’s service to the Nation, a majority of the Board
recommends that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect award
of the DFC.
_________________________________________________________________
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 extraordinary achievement while
participating in aerial flight from March 1945 to December 1945.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 16 Nov 98, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as
recommended. Mr. Van Gasbeck voted to deny the request for
reconsideration. The following additional documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 11 May 98, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 97-01967
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:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to ----, be corrected to show that he was awarded the
Distinguished Flying Cross for extraordinary achievement while
participating in aerial flight from March 1945 to December 1945.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-01967A
On 17 Feb 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the subject applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), and the China Service Medal (see AFBCMR 97-01967), with Exhibits A through D). In view of the above, and in recognition of the applicant’s service to the Nation, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s records be...
On 17 Feb 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the subject applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), and the China Service Medal (see AFBCMR 97-01967), with Exhibits A through D). In view of the above, and in recognition of the applicant’s service to the Nation, a majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s records be...
However, the evidence provided has established to our satisfaction that the applicant‘s service during the period in question did warrant recognition by award of the Air Medal and that the recommendation for this award was submitted and lost. RECOMMENDATION. We recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross for 15 Jul45 and the Air Medal for Mar 45-Jul45 and Jun 45-Sep 45.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02027
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02027 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The applicant flew 32 combat missions as a B-24 pilot and was a prisoner of war from 31 December 1944 to 8 May 1945. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Chair AFBCMR 02-00931 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00357 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM). ...
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded the DFC for his actions on 15 March 1971 as an Airborne Interpreter; however, due to the then classified nature of the mission and the drawn down of United States forces in Southeast Asia, he was not. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
He also completed three missions as a B-17F navigator. During World War II, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 30 combat flight missions and an AM was awarded upon the completion of five missions. In 1944, the 8th Air Force required completion of 30 combat flight missions; however, the applicant did not complete 30 missions.
AFPC/DPPPR does not believe sufficient justification has been provided to show that the applicant was not recommended for the DFC because of the classified nature of his mission. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A representative of the Rustic FAC Association states that a number of interpreters having similar duties were awarded the DFC based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01347
On 8 December 1945, he was relieved from active duty to accept appointment as a first lieutenant, Officers’ Reserve Corps, Army of the United States. DPPPR states that there is no evidence in the decedent’s records of a recommendation for, or award of, the DFC. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the FORMER MEMBER be corrected to show that he was awarded...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although the 1 October 1970 mission may have been classified at the time, the proposed citation is entirely unclassified, except for identying the enemy territory as Combodia, and was unclassified at that time. AFPC/DPPPR does not believe sufficient justification has been provided to show that the applicant was not recommended for...