RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03359

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

2.    He be awarded two additional Oak Leaf Clusters to his Air  Medal  (AM)
for flying 10 combat missions over the required 25 missions.

3.    He be promoted to the grade of captain in 1945  upon  separation  from
active duty or in 1950  after  serving  an  additional  five  years  in  the
Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been awarded a DFC since he and the  pilot  were  recommended
at the same time and for the same mission and the pilot  received  his  DFC;
or in the alternative, he should be awarded the DFC based on the  completion
of 35 combat missions.  He and the pilot (Lt S---) were both told that  they
would be awarded the DFC upon their return to the United States.   Based  on
this, they both wore the DFC ribbon until the conclusion of their careers.

Based on 8th Air Force policy, he should have been  awarded  two  additional
AMs (i.e., one for each five missions flown).

He should have been promoted to the grade of captain since normal  peacetime
requirements for time-in-grade were inoperative during  World  War  II.   He
believes that under the applicable 1945 war-time  promotion  directives,  he
was eligible for promotion to the grade of captain.  In  addition,  he  also
served in the Reserve and that time should justify a promotion.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the DFC citation of  a
former fellow crewmember and affidavits from  the  pilot  of  his  crew  and
another pilot.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Air Corps  on
22 April 1944 and entered active duty.

During the period 21 July 1944 through 14 March 1945,  he  was  assigned  to
the 67th Bombardment Squadron in England as a B-24 Navigator.   During  this
period, he completed a total of 35 combat missions.  He was awarded the  AM,
with four Oak Leaf Clusters.

He was promoted to the grade of first lieutenant on 17 October 1944.

On 30 September 1945, the applicant was relieved from  active  duty  in  the
grade of first lieutenant.

In a letter, dated 31 October 1952, the  Adjutant  General,  1st  Air  Force
informed the applicant that  he  had  been  tendered  an  appointment  as  a
Reserve officer for an indefinite term.  However, the records  indicate  the
letter was unclaimed and was returned on several occasions.

In a letter, dated 6 March  1953,  the  applicant  requested  a  retroactive
promotion to the Reserve grade of captain.

In  a  letter,  dated  24  March  1953,  the  applicant  was  informed  that
recommendations for promotion may be initiated  at  the  discretion  of  the
Reserve Unit Commander based upon attendance and  participation  in  current
reserve   assignment,    overall    merit,    capability    for    increased
responsibilities as  determined  by  the  Reserve  Unit  Commander,  and  in
general, on the same factors as apply to officers  of  the  active  military
establishment.

On 1 April 1953, the applicant’s reserve commission was terminated.

The DFC was established by Congress  on  2 July  1926  and  is  awarded  for
heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in  aerial  flight.
The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary  action
above and beyond the call of duty.

The AM is awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement while  participating
in aerial flight.

During World War II, the 8th Air Force had an established policy  whereby  a
DFC was awarded upon the completion of 35 heavy bomber missions  and  an  AM
was awarded upon the completion of five heavy bomber missions.

_________________________________________________________________





AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  Chief,  Recognition   Programs   Branch,   AFPC/DPPPR,   reviewed   the
application and states that the applicant’s records substantiate  his  claim
for  the  two  additional  AMs.   However,  there  is  no  documentation  to
substantiate his claim that he was actually  recommended  for  the  DFC,  or
that a recommendation was written, signed, and submitted.  Furthermore,  the
applicant has not provided any documentation to verify that  this  occurred,
and there is  no  indication  in  his  records  that  a  recommendation  was
written.  At that time, DFCs were no  longer  automatically  awarded  for  a
specified number of combat missions flown or completion of a combat tour;  a
written recommendation had to be signed,  endorsed,  and  submitted  to  the
final approval authority of that  unit.   There  is  no  indication  in  the
records that he made  any  attempt  to  ascertain  the  status  of  the  DFC
recommendation prior to this time.  Therefore, they  recommend  approval  of
his request for two additional AMs and recommend denial of his  request  for
the DFC.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Promotion & Appointment Branch, AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed  the
application and  states  that  the  applicant  did  not  provide  sufficient
documentation to support his claim that he was recommended for promotion  to
the grade of captain.   Although  he  would  have  met  the  time  in  grade
requirements for promotion to captain by  approximately  1  July  1945,  his
record does  not  reflect  that  he  was  ever  recommended  for  promotion.
Terminal  leave  promotions  did  not  become  effective  until   after   he
separated.  Furthermore, there  were  no  provisions  at  the  time  of  his
discharge to entitle him to  promotion  upon  separation.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of his request for promotion to the grade of captain.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Promotion Procedures and Analysis  Division,  ARPC/DPB,  reviewed
the application and states that  in  October  1952  and  January  1953,  the
applicant was tendered a permanent appointment  in  the  Reserve.   However,
documentation in the record shows that he never  responded  and  on  1 April
1953, his commission was terminated.   The  applicant  requested  a  Reserve
promotion in a letter, dated 6 March 1953; however,  he  was  informed  that
recommendations for promotion may be initiated  at  the  discretion  of  the
Reserve Unit Commander and applications submitted  by  reservists  were  not
acceptable.  He was also advised that he  was  not  eligible  for  promotion
consideration since he was not considered to occupy a troop  space  vacancy,
nor was he assigned to an active reserve unit.   Therefore,  they  recommend
denial of his request for promotion.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations  and  states  that  in  his
initial submission,  he  provided  a  statement  from  his  former  squadron
commander supporting his request for award of the DFC.  The  two  affidavits
he has provided offer sufficient proof, beyond a reasonable doubt,  that  he
was recommended for the DFC.  He and Lt S--- were both told  that  not  only
had they been recommended for the DFC but would be receiving them  on  their
return to the United States.  After World War II was over, Lt S---  received
his DFC, but he did not.  He states that he  has  been  advised  by  another
applicant who was successful in obtaining a belated award of the  DFC,  that
the Board recognized and honored such a recommendation.

The applicant’s complete responses are attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting award  of  the  DFC  and
two additional oak leaf clusters to the AM.  In this respect,  we  note  the
applicant completed a total of 35 combat  missions  while  assigned  to  the
Eighth Air Force as  a  B-24  navigator.   We  also  note  that  during  the
contested period, Eighth Air Force had an established policy whereby  a  DFC
was awarded upon the completion of 35 heavy bombardment missions and  an  AM
was awarded upon the completion of  five  heavy  bombardment  missions.   In
support of the appeal, the applicant  has  provided  a  statement  from  the
pilot of  his  former  crew  indicating  that  he  and  the  applicant  were
recommended for the DFC for completion of the same missions.   In  addition,
the applicant provides a copy of the pilot’s DFC  citation  which  indicates
that it was awarded  for  completion  of  bombardment  missions  over  enemy
occupied Continental Europe.  In view of this, and given  the  total  number
of missions he completed, we believe he should be awarded the  DFC  and  two
additional AMs.  Therefore, we recommend his records  be  corrected  to  the
extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  the   applicant’s
promotion to the grade of captain. After thoroughly reviewing  the  evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s submission, we are not  persuaded  that
he should be promoted to the grade of  captain  through  the  correction  of
records process.  Applicant’s contentions are duly  noted;  however,  we  do
not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by  the  offices  of  the  Air  Force.   The
offices of primary  responsibility  have  adequately  addressed  applicant’s
contentions regarding his request for promotion  and  we  agree  with  their
opinions and recommendations.  Therefore, we adopt the  rationale  expressed
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to  sustain  his
burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice to  warrant  his
promotion to captain.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting his request for promotion.

5.    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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.    On 11 January 1945, he was awarded  the  Air  Medal,  Fifth  Oak
Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving  as  a  Navigator
on  B-24  airplanes  on  many  bombardment  missions  over  enemy   occupied
Continental Europe.

      b.    On 12 January 1945, he was awarded  the  Air  Medal,  Sixth  Oak
Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving  as  a  Navigator
on  B-24  airplanes  on  many  bombardment  missions  over  enemy   occupied
Continental Europe.

      c.    On 15 March 1945, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying  Cross
for  extraordinary  achievement,  while  serving  as  a  Navigator  on  B-24
airplanes on many  bombardment  missions  over  enemy  occupied  Continental
Europe.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 24 April 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                       Mr. Mike Novel, Member





All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 00, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 12 Jan 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 5 Feb 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 6 Mar 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.
     Exhibit G.  Letters, Applicant, dated 26 March, 12, 14, and
                 18 Apr 01, w/atchs.




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Vice Chair

AFBCMR 00-03359




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 APPLICANT be corrected to show:

      a.    On 11 January 1945, he was awarded the Air Medal, Fifth Oak
Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Navigator
on B-24 airplanes on many bombardment missions over enemy occupied
Continental Europe.

      b.    On 12 January 1945, he was awarded the Air Medal, Sixth Oak
Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Navigator
on B-24 airplanes on many bombardment missions over enemy occupied
Continental Europe.

      c.    On 15 March 1945, he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross
for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Navigator on B-24
airplanes on many bombardment missions over enemy occupied Continental
Europe.









JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency