RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00189
            INDEX CODE:  100, 102, 107

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    He be appointed to the rank of second lieutenant  as  previously
approved on 3 May 45 and his Military Record and Report of  Separation
Certificate of Service be amended  to  reflect  retroactive  promotion
from flight officer to second lieutenant.

2.    He receive the World War II (WW II) Victory Medal.

3.    A copy of  the  Army  orders  or  documented  description  which
created the mission “Green” or “Rainbow” Project be  obtained  and  he
receive the final report on its success.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Military Record and Report of Separation  Certificate  of  Service
does not reflect that he was  awarded  the  WW  II  Victory  Medal  or
promoted to second lieutenant in Sep 45 and this may have been because
the new organization did not act on the approval dated 3 May 45 or the
orders were lost or simply did not catch up to his new  military  base
organization.

In support of  his  appeal,  applicant  provided  documents  from  his
military personnel records.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.
 Therefore, the limited available documentation in his records and the
documentation provided by the applicant will be used in this statement
of facts.

On 9 Apr 43, the applicant voluntarily enlisted in the  Reserve  Corps
of the Army of the United States in the grade of private.

On 13 Aug 43, applicant was called to active duty.  He  was  honorably
discharged on 20 Oct 44 in the grade of aviation cadet.

On 21 Oct 44, applicant was called to active duty in the Army  of  the
United States and was appointed a flight officer.

On 30 Mar 45, the squadron commander recommended the applicant  for  a
commission in the Army of the United States.

On 23 Apr 45, the applicant requested that he be  appointed  a  second
lieutenant in the Army of the United States.  Per 1st  indorsement  to
applicant’s request, the commanding officer  recommended  approval  of
applicant’s request and indicated that  he  carefully  considered  the
application and  was  satisfied  that  the  applicant  possessed  such
qualities of leadership, integrity and professional  ability  to  make
him especially desirable as a commissioned officer  in  the  Army  Air
Forces.

On 3 May 45, the  commanding  officer  certified  that  the  applicant
demonstrated his fitness for promotion in actual combat on  24 Mar  45
by participating in combat as a navigator on a C-47 type aircraft on a
paradrop mission over Germany.  The  commanding  officer  stated  that
during his participation, applicant displayed clearly such  attributes
of leadership, courage and devotion to duty  as  to  qualify  him  for
appointment  as  second  lieutenant.   Per  1st  indorsement  to   the
commanding officer’s  certification,  applicant  was  recommended  for
position as  navigator.   The  commanding  officer  indicated  that  a
vacancy did not exist for the navigator position  in  accordance  with
Table of Organization and Equipment No. 1-317, dated 12 May 44.

On 29 Sep 45, the applicant was released from active duty in the  Army
of the United States in the grade of flight officer with an  honorable
characterization of service.  He was credited with 3 months 22 days of
continental service and 7 months and 17 days of foreign service.

On 23 Sep 96, the Chief, Records Reconstruction Branch,  informed  the
applicant, by letter, that a review of the available records failed to
locate any information or evidence that applicant was ever awarded the
promotion to second lieutenant for  which  he  was  recommended.   The
Chief stated that the documents the applicant submitted indicated that
he was indeed approved as qualified for the position but the documents
did not indicate that he received the commission.   In  addition,  the
Chief stated that their  search  did  locate  a  document  which  made
reference to the special mission  applicant  asked  about  “Green”  or
“Rainbow” Project.  Special Order #94, dated 18 Sep 45, made reference
to applicant’s relief from active duty as a “Rainbow Separation.”  The
Chief indicated that it would appear that this is  the  title  of  the
mission  applicant  described.   The  Chief  stated  that   additional
documents pertaining to  the  Rainbow  Project  or  Mission  were  not
available  in  applicant’s  file  or  elsewhere  within  the   Records
Reconstruction Branch.  The applicant  was  informed  that  should  he
desire further information about that mission, he  needed  to  contact
the unit history office of the Department of the Air Force.

On 27 Jan 98, officials at the  Air  Force  Personnel  Center  (AFPC),
AFPC/DPPPRA, Randolph AFB, Texas,  informed  the  applicant  that  the
portion of his request pertaining to award of the WW II Victory  Medal
was resolved administratively.   A  review  of  applicant’s  available
documentation regarding his service disclosed that he was entitled  to
the American Campaign Medal, Air Medal  (AM),  European-African-Middle
Eastern Campaign Medal with 2 Bronze Service Stars (BSS),  and  WW  II
Victory Medal.  His records were forwarded to the  appropriate  office
to have the necessary corrections made.  DPPPRA also indicated that  a
complete set of applicant’s awards and decorations, including  the  WW
II Honorable Service Lapel Button, were enclosed.

On 4 Feb 98, a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate  of
Release or Discharge From Active Duty) was issued reflecting award  of
the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with 2 BSS,  WW  II
Victory Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Skills  Management  Branch,  AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed   this
application and indicated that review of the  policies  in  effect  at
that time indicate  that  the  selection  of  flight  officers  for  a
commission was based on a competitive system.   Army  Regulation  (AR)
615-150, 5 Nov 42, paragraph 8(b), states, “The system  for  selecting
those flight officers who will be commissioned second  lieutenants  in
the Army of the United States will be  prescribed  by  the  Commanding
General, Army Air Forces.”  Due to the passage of time, DPPAE does not
have access to all pertinent regulations to determine  the  prescribed
selection system.   The  documentation  indicates  the  applicant  was
recommended at the local unit level; however, that, by itself, is  not
sufficient documentation to conclude it was the  only  requirement  he
had to meet to be commissioned or that an error or injustice occurred.
 Taking into consideration applicant’s lack of absolute proof and  the
delay in submitting his appeal, DPPAE can only surmise that he did not
meet commissioning  criteria  years  ago.   However,  considering  his
service to our country and the fact that they cannot positively refute
his contentions, they defer the decision to the Board.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force  evaluation  and  provided  a  2-page
statement.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  Applicant’s request for
award of the WW II Victory Medal has been  administratively  resolved.
With respect to his request for information concerning the “Green”  or
“Rainbow” Project, we suggest  applicant  contact  the  AF  Historical
Research Agency or the United States Archives.   Therefore,  the  only
issue for the Board to consider is his request to be  appointed  as  a
second lieutenant.  While applicant’s contentions cannot be positively
refuted, we find insufficient evidence that he was ever appointed as a
second lieutenant in the Army Air Force.  Rather, it  appears  he  was
simply recommended at the local level but apparently was not  selected
for an appointment.  Therefore, in view  of  the  above,  and  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 March 1999, under the provisions of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 96, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 24 Jun 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 19 Nov 98.




                                   DOUGLAS J. HEADY
                                   Panel Chair