RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00860
            INDEX CODE 107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded two additional  Air  Medal  (AMs)  for  his  last  ten  combat
missions.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the period in question the AM was  awarded  upon  the  completion  of
five combat missions and since  he  completed  40  combat  missions,  he  is
entitled to eight AMs.

The applicant states that he flew a total of 40 combat missions in  Northern
Africa, (i.e., 35 combat missions with Captain T***  as  the  turret  gunner
and his last five  combat  missions  were  with  different  aircrews).   His
second tour of duty was in the China-Burma-India Theatre of  Operation  (CBI
TO) as  a  C-46  radio  operator.   He  was  formally  awarded  the  AM  for
completion  of  his  first  five  combat  missions;  however,   no   further
ceremonies or award  presentations  were  made  for  the  remaining  AMs  he
received.  Because of his moving around, his awards were  probably  kept  in
limbo somewhere.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  his  personal  statement  and
documentation reflecting his completion of 40 combat missions  and  12  sub-
patrol missions.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of  the  Army  Air  Corps  that  served  on
active duty from 8 October 1941 to 28 September 1945.  During  this  period,
he completed a total of 40 combat missions and 12 sub-patrol missions, as  a
turret gunner and radio operator.

The applicant served in North Africa from 2  December  1942  to  2  February
1943.

On  1  June  1943,  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  AM  for   meritorious
achievement while participating in five sorties against the enemy.

On 11 September  1943,  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  AM,  1  OLC,  for
meritorious achievement while participating  in  five  sorties  against  the
enemy.

On 13 September  1943,  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  AM,  3  OLC,  for
meritorious achievement while participating  in  five  sorties  against  the
enemy.

On  11  October  1943,  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  AM,  4  OLC,  for
meritorious achievement while participating  in  five  sorties  against  the
enemy.

From 15 March 1945 to 20 March 1945, the  applicant  served  in  the  China-
Burma-India Theatre of Operation (CBI TO).

On 17 August 1945, the applicant was awarded the AM, 5 OLC, for  meritorious
achievement while participating in aerial flight from 31  March  1945  to  9
June 1945 as aerial radio operator.

On 21 September  1945,  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  AM,  6  OLC,  for
meritorious achievement while  participating  in  aerial  flight  as  aerial
radio operator from 31 March 1945 to 7 September 1945.

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

During World War II, the 8th and 12th Air Forces had an  established  policy
whereby an AM was awarded upon the completion of five combat  missions  over
Africa.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, states that  applicant’s
Report of  Separation  reflects  award  of  the  AM, 5 OLC;  Asiatic-Pacific
Campaign  Medal,  with  2  Bronze  Service  Stars;   European-African-Middle
Eastern Campaign Medal, with 3 Bronze Service  Stars;  Good  Conduct  Medal;
and Distinguished Unit Citation.  However, while reviewing his  records,  it
was discovered that he earned the AM, 4 OLC, during  his  tour  in  Northern
Africa, and earned two more AMs during his tour in the CBI  TO.   Therefore,
his Report of Separation should have reflected award of the  AM, 6 OLC,  the
American Defense Service Medal, the American Campaign Medal  and  the  World
War II Victory Medal.  However, the Asiatic-Pacific  Campaign  Medal  should
not reflect any bronze service stars  because  the  unit  to  which  he  was
assigned was not credited with any  campaign  participation.   In  addition,
the European-African-Middle  Eastern  Campaign  Medal  should  reflect  four
bronze service stars, instead of three.   Furthermore,  since  none  of  the
units to which he was assigned earned the Distinguished Unit Citation  while
he was assigned to them, he is not entitled to the award.

AFPC/DPPPR states that there  is  no  evidence  provided  by  the  applicant
showing that a written recommendation for any additional AMs  was  submitted
into official  channels.   The  AM  recommendations  for  flights  performed
during the applicant’s first overseas tour were processed after he  departed
the command.  Had he been recommended for any additional AMs for  his  first
tour, the documentation would have been processed prior to  his  arrival  in
the CBI TO.  Had the recommendations been submitted and denied, they do  not
believe any documentation would be found in his records, since  he  and  his
records  had  departed  the  European  Theatre  of   Operations.    Although
decorations for aerial achievement were still being awarded based on a  pre-
determined number of combat flight missions, a  written  recommendation  had
to  be  submitted  into  official  channels  for  approval.   Without   such
documentation, they cannot verify his eligibility for  any  additional  AMs.
Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  states  that  the  Air
Corps record keeping leaves much to be desired.  He hopes that someone  will
give him a corrected copy of any awards to which he is entitled.

The 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.  After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that
relief should be granted.  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  office  of  the  Air
Force.  The  office  of  primary  responsibility  has  adequately  addressed
applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinion and  recommendation.
 We, therefore, 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.  Hence, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 9 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
                  Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 8 May 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 01.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair