RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02524
                 INDEX CODE   107.00
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  Yes
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  be  awarded  the  Distinguished  Flying  Cross  (DFC)   “and   all
appropriate battle stars” for his performance in combat during January
to March 1945.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He flew as lead radar-bombardier-navigator on 12  missions,  excelling
in performance recording strikes on targets on many of these missions.
 He was shot down on 15 March 1945 while leading the 301st Bomb  Group
(301BG) on the bomb run against an oil refinery at  Ruhland,  Germany.
Since he was captured and interned as a prisoner of war (POW), he  was
never recognized for his accomplishments.  As  for  the  over  50-year
delay, he explains he recently discovered letters he wrote home during
this period that verify his role as squadron, group  or  wave  (multi-
group) lead radar-bombardier-navigator  (Mickey  operator).   He  also
obtained post-attack mission reports from the USAF Historical Research
Agency at Maxwell AFB, AL, on targets on the dates  he  was  the  lead
radar-bombardier.

He provides copies of historical material, personal letters,  excerpts
from his military records, a proposed citation for the DFC, and  other
documentation.

A copy  of  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Pennsylvania Enlisted Reserve Corps on 8
December 1942 and was called to active duty on 18  February  1943.  He
was honorably discharged on 30 July 1944 to accept  a  commission.  He
entered active duty  as  a  second  lieutenant  on  31 July  1944  and
departed for Italy on 15 December 1944. During the period in question,
he a was a second lieutenant assigned to the 301BG, 5th Wing, 15th Air
Force, as a Mickey-Navigator for a B-17G.

On 15 March 1945, while on a high-altitude bombardment attack  on  the
Ruhland synthetic oil plant in Germany, the applicant’s  aircraft  was
hit by flak, dropped out of formation and exploded. The applicant  was
listed as missing in action (MIA) and his father  was  advised  on  24
March 1945 that his son had been awarded the Air Medal (AM), effective
7 March 1945. The applicant apparently incurred an injury to his right
leg in an emergency parachute jump, for which he was later awarded the
Purple Heart. He was liberated from Moosburg [sic] Camp, Germany,  and
returned to military control on 29 April 1945. He returned to  the  US
on 21 June 1945. He was relieved from active duty on 24 December 1945.
He also received the following awards: European-African-Middle Eastern
Campaign Medal  (EAMECM)  with  two  Bronze  Service  Stars,  American
Campaign Medal, Distinguished Unit Citation, POW Medal, and World  War
II (WWII) Victory Medal.

Effective 1 July 1969, the applicant was promoted to the Reserve grade
of lieutenant colonel. On 29 August 1972, he was  transferred  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel from the Ready to the Retired Reserves.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, reviewed the case and
advised the applicant’s records  were  corrected  administratively  to
show award of two bronze  service  stars  to  the  EAMECM  (and  other
awards). He  received  recognition  for  his  aerial  achievements  as
reflected by the award of the Air Medal on his Report  of  Separation.
There is no indication in his records, and  he  did  not  provide  any
documentation, showing he was recommended for the DFC or an  oak  leaf
cluster to his AM.  It is regrettable he did not pursue  this  inquiry
earlier when the unit and its  chain  of  command  were  available  to
answer any questions he had  regarding  his  awards  and  decorations.
Additional documentation received from the applicant provides  no  new
materials except a proposed citation for the DFC. Normally, commanders
awarded the AM for every 10 combat flight missions, and the DFC  after
completion of 25 missions. However, a written recommendation still had
to be  submitted.  The  applicant  completed  only  12  combat  flight
missions before being shot down. Therefore, under the policy  at  that
time, he is  not  eligible  for  any  additional  aerial  decorations.
Denial is recommended.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant rebuts the evaluation, contending the  documentation  he
submitted included orders of  another  Mickey  operator  in  the  same
organization during the same period who was not shot down and  a  list
of the awards he received. This provides guidance as to the awards due
him.  He was never recognized for his accomplishments  in  combat.  He
was deserving but since he was shot  down  his  exemplary  performance
prior to that incident was ignored. He  explains  in  great  detail  a
[Mickey] operator’s role and his in particular.  He  argues  that  the
advisory’s statements are  incorrect  as  far  as  standard  operating
procedure in the 15th Air Force during WWII. The  AM  was  awarded  to
individuals after completion of the first  5  combat  missions  and  a
bronze oak  leaf  cluster  was  automatically  awarded  for  every  10
missions thereafter. A DFC could  be  and  often  was  awarded  to  an
individual for exemplary service such as a bombardier hitting a target
or a pilot bringing home a badly damaged aircraft. The  bombardier  on
the crew of the B-17 when he was  shot  down  on  15  March  1945  was
awarded a DFC for knocking out a bridge in Northern Italy. By the time
POWs had been returned to the military control, the war in Europe  had
ended and any contemplated actions got lost in the need of the  parent
organization to get on with the war.

He provides a statement and a signed proposed DFC  citation  from  the
former  301BG  commander.    Applicant’s   complete   response,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA,  reviewed  the
applicant’s complete submissions and advises  that  the  applicant  is
correct in the overall assessment of  number  of  missions  flown  and
using specific accomplishments  as  criteria  for  awarding  the  DFC.
However, the whole point is that a written recommendation package  had
to be submitted [emphasis  advisory’s]  by  competent  authority.  The
basic criteria for awarding  decorations  remain  the  same;  i.e.,  a
written recommendation, endorsed by a higher official, and sent  to  a
final approval/disapproval authority. The handwritten statement by the
former 301BG commander states, “. . .  all  officers  who  occupied  a
“lead” position were awarded the  DFC  before  completing  their  35th
mission and going home.” Therefore, the criteria for that command  was
completion of  a  specified  number  of  missions  (35)  before  being
recommended for the DFC and completing a tour. The applicant was  shot
down on his 12th mission and does not meet the criteria  for  the  DFC
for a specified number of missions completed. The  squadron  commander
would have logically been the  recommending  official  and  the  group
commander  would  have  been  the  endorsing  official.  The  two-page
document [submitted in the applicant’s rebuttal from the former  group
commander] is more of a narrative justification and, again,  does  not
specify an inclusive time period or a specific  accomplishment/mission
for award of the DFC. The identity of the  former  commander  and  the
applicant’s accomplishments have never been in question (eligibility).
What is questioned  is  his  entitlement  to  the  DFC.  There  is  no
indication in his records that a  written  recommendation  was  placed
into official channels by the  then  353rd  Bomb  Squadron  commander,
although all of  the  cited  accomplishments  occurred  prior  to  the
applicant’s plane being shot down. The applicant stated  that  the  AM
was awarded for five combat flight missions and oak leaf clusters  for
every 10  missions  thereafter.  This  would  mean  15  combat  flight
missions would have to be accomplished before award of the  first  oak
leaf cluster to the AM. The applicant did not meet the  then  criteria
established by his command for either an oak leaf cluster to the AM or
the basic DFC.  The applicant’s current “recommendation package”  does
not  meet  the  criteria  established  under  the   National   Defense
Authorization Act of 1996. As the applicant has not  met  any  of  the
established criteria, his entitlement to the DFC  cannot  be  verified
and the Chief recommends disapproval.

A copy of the complete additional evaluation, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  argues  that  the  advisory’s  information  as  to  the
recommendation for award procedures in force at the  15th  Air  Force,
301BG, during the time frame of his combat activity is  erroneous.  He
provides a  statement  from  the  Historian  for  the  301st  Veterans
Association that clarifies this issue.  The  operative  word  in  [the
former  group  commander’s]  statement  that  the   Chief   apparently
overlooked  is  “Before”  [emphasis  applicant’s].    Therefore,   the
criteria for that command was not completion of a specified number  of
missions (35) before being recommended for the DFC  and  completing  a
tour. Thus, the Chief’s subsequent statements about  the  criteria  in
force at that command are in error. He  asks  whether,  based  on  the
additional advisory, a DFC can only be awarded for one accomplishment.
If so, he suggests how the citation  can  be  simplified.  The  former
group commander’s statement should outweigh all  the  “facts”  in  the
additional advisory.

In a second rebuttal, the applicant supplies a letter from  “a  former
tentmate during [his] tour in Italy,” and the wording of  a  DFC  this
individual apparently received five years after  WWII.  The  applicant
used the words to create a citation for his performance, which he also
provides.

Copies of his complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The  letters  and
historical documents the applicant provided were extremely interesting
and we acknowledge the contributions he and the members of  his  group
made to the war effort. However, these materials  and  all  the  other
available  evidence  were  not  sufficiently  compelling  to   warrant
awarding him the DFC. The former group commander stated that “had [the
applicant] continued flying with the 301st Bomb Gp in World War II, he
would have received a DFC, as  all  officers  who  occupied  a  “lead”
position were awarded the DFC before completing their 35th mission and
going home.” The fact remains that  the  applicant  did  not  continue
flying with the group; he was shot down and  captured,  for  which  he
received the POW medal. Further, he was awarded the  AM,  effective  7
March 1945, and we believe this was the recognition intended  for  his
performance up to 15 March 1945 when he was  shot  down.  Undoubtedly,
the applicant  will  be  disappointed  that  we  have  chosen  not  to
speculate concerning the awards  and  decorations  he  may  have  been
deprived of had he not been shot down and captured.  However,  he  has
not provided convincing evidence to support entitlement to the DFC  or
any additional decorations  over  and  beyond  those  he  has  already
received. Therefore, we believe the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden  of  having  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice
warranting 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 legal 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 25 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

            Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 98, w/atchs.
            Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
            Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 14 Sep 98.
            Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 98.
            Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Oct 98, w/atchs.
            Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 11 Dec 98,
                       w/atchs.
            Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Dec 98.
            Exhibit H.  Letters, Applicant, dated 19 Feb & 25 Mar 99,
                       w/atchs.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Panel Chair