RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02731
INDEX CODE: 107.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The applicant has offered no specific contentions. His complete
submission, to include a copy of his discharge certificate, a commendation
certificate, certificate indicating completion of 30 bombing missions and
other documents relative to the issue under review, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former enlisted member of the Army Air Corps who
served as a Radio Operator/Mechanic/Gunner during World War II. He was
honorably discharged on 6 October 1945 by reason of demobilization,
having served 2 years, 8 months and 10 days of total active military
service, of which 10 months and 23 days was foreign service.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, indicated the applicant did
not provide any documentation showing a written recommendation was
submitted into official channels (i.e., signed by the recommending official
and endorsed by the next higher official in the chain of command). He
received the Air Medal with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters in recognition of his
aerial achievements. Without a copy of a signed recommendation, DPPPR can
not verify his eligibility for the Distinguished Flying Cross and therefore
recommends disapproval of the applicant's request (Exhibit B).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for
review and response. As of this date, this office has received no response
(Exhibit D).
___________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of this case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 23 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Panel Chair
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Member
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Sep 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 25 Oct 00.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Nov 00.
ROBERT W. ZOOK
Panel Chair
A complete copy of the submission is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the advisory is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion E. Applicant’s Response DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER RANDOLPH AIR FORCE SAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 31 January 2000 FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPPR 550 C Street West Ste 12 Randolph AFB TX 78150-4714 SUBJECT:...
Given the fact that this document was issued within a relatively short period of time following his separation, we must conclude that responsible officials had access to the applicant’s military records and determined that the applicant had been awarded the GCM. No documentary evidence has been presented to indicate that a recommendation for award of the DFC was officially submitted. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03160
There also was no decoration recommendation provided by the applicant or in his military records to indicate a SS recommendation was submitted. DPPPR states no individual can recommend himself or herself for a one- time reconsideration for decoration upgrade. As of this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and indicated that to be awarded the Purple Heart Medal, a member must provide documentation to support he was wounded as a direct result of enemy action. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC. We note the applicant’s request that his records be corrected to reflect award of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02836
If one member of a crew receives the DFC all members should. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that in 1944 he and others were selected to be lead crew and would receive the DFC upon completion of 30 missions. He states that AFPC has erred in their recommendation and that he should be granted the medal as well as the recognition of a certificate.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00386
AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that although the applicant’s records indicate that he completed a total of 35 combat missions and he has submitted a DFC recommendation signed by his former commander, in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM or DFC based solely on the number of combat missions completed, but rather for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. Applicant’s records do not indicate he was...
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). Since the applicant did not meet the local requirement for completion of 30 combat flight missions and has not provided persuasive evidence that he was recommended for the DFC, the majority is not convinced he should be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. ...
During the period of 7 Oct 44 through 9 Apr 45, the applicant completed 30 operational missions. The applicant did not respond to DPPR’s letter requesting a copy of his Report of Separation. Without any additional documentation to support his request, DPPPR cannot verify the applicant’s eligibility for the DFC; therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit B).
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02556
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02556 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and his Air Medal (AM) be updated to reflect 28 missions flown during World War II. AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...