ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
yrpf4 1998
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBERS: 80- 00947
97- 02008
(Case 1)
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect the
addition of the Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster (50LC) to the Air Medal
(AM) and Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), and award of the China
War Memorial Medal.
The AFBCMR previously considered and denied the applicant I s
request that his records be corrected to reflect the addition of
an Oak Leaf Cluster to the AM and DFC (see AFBCMR 80- 00947, with
Exhibits A through C) .
By letter, dated 24
the applicant requested
reconsideration of his original application (which is now AFBCMR
97- 02008) concerning the addition of the 50LC to the AM and DFC.
He also amended his request to include award of the China War
Memorial Medal (Exhibit D) .
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant I s requests
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
applicant's requests be denied (Exhibit E). The advisory opinion
was forwarded to the applicant for review and response
(Exhibit F) . Applicant Is response to the advisory opinion is at
Exhibit G.
Jun 97,
After careful consideration of applicant's requests for the
addition of the 50LC to the AM and DFC and his most recent
submission, we are unpersuaded that a reversal of our earlier
determination is warranted. No evidence has been presented which
shows to our satisfaction that the applicant was entitled to the
50LC for the AM and DFC. Concerning his request for award of the
China War Memorial Medal, the facts and opinions stated in the
advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and
persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
have not been adequately rebutted by applicant.
Absent
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, the applicant's
requests are not favorably considered.
The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Mr. Joseph G. Diamond,
and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. considered this application on 11 Aug 98
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-
2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
Additional Exhibits:
D. Applicant's Ltr
E. Advisory Opinion
F.
G. Applicantis Response
SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
On August 11, 1998, the Board again considered and denied the applicant’s appeal, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect the addition of the Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal and Distinguished Flying Cross, and award of the China War Memorial Medal. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Awards and Decorations Section, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the applicant’s most recent...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02015
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and additional campaign credit for the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal be denied. DPPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC for actions on 10 October 1944; additional campaign credit for the Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal; and, award of the Air Medal with fourth oak leaf cluster for the period 23...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The appropriate Air Force office reviewed the additional documentation and provided another advisory opinion to the Board recommending denial of the application (Exhibit F). Awarded the fourth oak leaf cluster for 19 Jul70, when he already has received a decoration for that date, would be more than dual recognition, it would be a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01125
There is no evidence to support he completed 29 missions required, at that time, for award of the DFC or that he met any other eligibility criteria for award of the DFC. The applicant’s records currently reflect he was awarded the AM twice and is entitled to the AM w/1OLC. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 24 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00448
He be awarded an additional Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) to his Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). Therefore, in view of this, we believe it would be in the interest of justice to award him an additional DFC because his remaining 200 combat hours meet the criteria for this recognition. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 18...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02073
The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel states, among other things, that but for the applicant’s actions on 5 June 1944, the mission’s command pilot would have been in severe shock and unconscious in a matter of minutes and incapable of the aircraft flight maneuvers for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor. Based on the established 8th Air Force policy of...
There is no indication the applicant was ever recommended for the SS or DFC. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C . We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02255
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02255 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two Distinguished Flying Crosses (DFCs), an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM), and the Army Commendation Medal (ACM). In this...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02179
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02179 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and two additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). In addition, based on the Eighth Air Force policy...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01090
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. No documentation was submitted indicating the applicant completed 500 operational flying hours. 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...