RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00203
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His commander during World War II recommended an entire crew of ten men for
the DFC, and he was the only crewmember who did not receive this
decoration.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
letter from a crewmember, dated 12 February 1998, and other documentation.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973 at
the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). Limited military records
were available.
The applicant enlisted into the Air Corps on 12 November 1941 for a period
of four (4) years.
Applicant was discharged on 25 September 1945, in the grade of Staff
Sergeant with an honorable discharge, under the provisions of AR 615-365
(Convenience of the Government - Demobilization). He served a total of 3
years, 3 months and 28 days of total active military service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed
this application and states that in 1999, the applicant’s case was sent to
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council Board, and his request was
denied because he did not provide any documentation recommending him or
that he was eligible, due to having performed an act of heroism or
extraordinary achievement during a combat flight mission. The applicant
states, and provides a statement from another individual, that he flew 35
combat flight missions. The applicant and that individual also state that
all the crewmembers, except the applicant, received the DFC. Of the nine
other crewmembers, only the records for four of the named individuals could
be located. Of those four, one does not contain a Report of Separation
(the individual who provided the statement); of the three remaining
individuals, only two received the DFC. The applicant has not provided any
documentation showing he was recommended for the DFC, or any documentation
showing he was eligible for the DFC. He did not provide any documentation
to substantiate his claim that the nine other crewmembers received the DFC,
and their records do not substantiate this claim. The DFC is awarded for
heroism or extraordinary achievement during a combat flight mission. The
applicant has not provided any documentation or information showing he met
the criteria, and the letter of recommendation from the other individual
did not state that the applicant met the criteria. Therefore, they can not
verify that the applicant is eligible for the DFC. Therefore, they
recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 1 June 2001, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 warranting award of the
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). 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. 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 3 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
Ms. Olga Crerar, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 January 2001, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 May 2001, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 June 2001.
HENRY ROMO, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-03377
All of the other crewmembers, except for him, have received the DFC for the completion of 30 combat missions. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 May 2003 for review and response within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
He also completed three missions as a B-17F navigator. During World War II, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 30 combat flight missions and an AM was awarded upon the completion of five missions. In 1944, the 8th Air Force required completion of 30 combat flight missions; however, the applicant did not complete 30 missions.
The pilot of the 25 August 1972 mission recommends the applicant be awarded the DFC and states that during the mission the applicant played an extraordinary role in pre-planning, coordinating and ensuring the success of reconnaissance and air strikes. As such, they believe he received sufficient recognition for his achievement during aerial flight. Of the Airborne Interpreters who participated in the Rustic Operation, the applicant is one of only two individuals who did not receive at...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR states that since they have no authority to evaluate recommendations for decorations, they recommend that the AFBCMR evaluate the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and decide if...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00994
After a complete review of all three official military records they were able to confirm the two crewmembers received the DFC for a number of bombardment missions flown over Europe in June 1944, and the applicant receiving the Air Medal w/3 OLC in June 1944. He requested the DFC through his congressman’s office in June 1996 and was informed a written recommendation was required for award of the DFC. The Board also notes, the applicant received the Air Medal w/3 OLC during the time both...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03794
In BC-2004-02294, the AFBCMR awarded a DFC to an applicant who had also completed more than the required ten missions as a lead navigator and an additional oak leaf cluster for completion of a tour of 32 combat missions. 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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01874
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Based on established Eighth Air Force policy of awarding a DFC upon the completion of 10 lead combat missions, based on his completion of 11 lead combat missions he should be awarded the DFC. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00357 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM). ...
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...