RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02353
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was recommended for the DFC for bombing the Japanese heavy cruiser
“Aoba,” but never received it.
The applicant states that on 6 June 1944, he was the lead bombardier aboard
a B-24 aircraft during a bombing attack against a Japanese ship and his
aircraft was the only one in the formation to score direct hits on the
“Aoba.” He was told that he was recommended for the DFC for the mission
because the bombardier of another aircraft received the DFC under almost
identical circumstances. The original letter recommending him for the DFC
may have been changed or substituted for another by someone having access
to the commander’s office.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits excerpts from a newsletter, the
380th Bomb Group history, and statements from the former tail-gunner and
engineer gunner (top turret). The statement from the tail-gunner indicates
that he saw three bombs splash very close to the left side of the ship and
one bomb splash on the right side of the ship. The engineer gunner’s
statement indicates that he saw a bomb hit the deck and both sides of the
cruiser as they made their turn to avoid the flak.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former Army Air Corps B-24 bombardier who served on
active duty from 13 May 1943 through 21 November 1945.
During this period, he completed a total of 35 combat missions and was
awarded the Air Medal with Two Oak Leaf Clusters, two Bronze Service Stars,
and a Letter of Commendation by the Commanding General, Far East Air Forces
(FEAF).
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.
During World War II, the 5th Air Force had an established policy whereby a
DFC was awarded upon the completion of 50 combat missions and an AM was
awarded upon the completion of 25 combat missions.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, states that while the
applicant has provided statements from individuals regarding the 6 June
1944 bombing mission on a Japanese vessel, the statements are conflicting.
The statement from the tail gunner indicates that he saw splashes very
close to either side of the Japanese ship, and the statement from the top
turret gunner indicates that he saw a bomb hit the deck of the Japanese
ship. The newsletter article attributes the hit to another individual, but
the Group history gives the applicant credit for the hit. The applicant
contends the other individual took credit for his hit and was awarded the
DFC. Although there is no longer any record of a DFC recommendation being
submitted into official channels, they believe that it was submitted, but
the FEAF Commander awarded him a Letter of Commendation, in lieu of the
DFC. Since the applicant waited over 55 years to submit a claim for the
DFC, there are no longer any records available for verification and most of
the individuals who would have had first-hand knowledge are deceased, there
is no way to verify any of his claims. 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
eyewitness statements are not in conflict with each other. Neither gunner
apparently had full view of the target at the time so each only states what
he saw, which was the right thing for them to do. The squadron commander
signed a letter two days after he said that he had sent a letter
recommending him for the DFC. In addition, there is mention of the DFC
recommendation in official documents. In view of this, and since another
bombardier from the same squadron, some 50 years later, told the editor
writing the group history that he was the bombardier on the subject
mission, it should lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that an
investigation is warranted to determine if the letter written by the
squadron commander was either changed or substituted; whereby, the DFC may
have been issued to an undeserving person.
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 thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record and noting the applicant's contentions, a majority of
the Board is not persuaded that he should be awarded the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC). The statements provided by the applicant’s former crew
member’s are duly noted; however, a majority of the Board does not find
them, in and by themselves, sufficient to warrant awarding the DFC.
Although the applicant was recommended for the DFC, there is no evidence
the recommendation was approved. Furthermore, it appears that in lieu of
the DFC, the applicant received a Letter of Commendation for his actions on
6 June 1944. The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country
is noted and the majority’s recommendation to deny the requested relief in
no way diminishes the high regard we have for his service; however,
insufficient documentary evidence has been presented to warrant awarding
him the DFC. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 6 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
A majority of the Board voted to deny the application. Mr. Hennessey voted
to grant the application and has submitted a Minority Report that is at
Exhibit F. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 14 Sep 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Sep 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.
Exhibit F. Minority Report.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of SUBJECT
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY
SUBJECT: APPLICANT, DOCKET NO: 01-02353
The majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s request for
award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) be denied. However, in view
of the circumstances in this case, I believe he should be awarded the DFC.
The majority of the Board found the statements provided by the
applicant’s former crew members insufficient to warrant awarding the DFC.
However, I find these statements from eyewitnesses to the sinking of the
Japanese Heavy Cruiser Aoba compelling. The former tail-gunner states that
he saw three bombs splash very close to the left side of the ship and one
bomb splash of the right side of the ship and the engineer gunner states
that he saw a bomb hit the deck and both sides of the cruiser as they made
their turn to avoid the flak.
In view of these statements, and since the 380th Bomb Group history
gives the applicant credit for the direct hit on the Aoba, I strongly
believe the applicant has met his burden of proof that his records are in
error and unjust. Therefore, based on a totality of the evidence
presented, I believe the interest of justice can best be served by
resolving this issue in the applicant’s behalf.
Based on the foregoing, I recommend that the applicant be awarded
the DFC for his actions on 6 June 1944.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01826
In support of his request, the applicant submits his personal statement, Congressional correspondence, recommendations from his former commander/Director of Combat Operations Fifth Air Force, narrative recommendations, proposed citations, a statement from his wingman on the 28 June 1952 mission, extracts from his personal copies of his military records to include flight records, mission reports, a copy of the only other DSC awarded in the wing, translated Russian mission reports for...
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. 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.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Since he flew with the same aircrew for 28 missions and was on the 17 February 1945 mission for which the navigator of his aircrew was awarded the DFC through the correction of record process, he should be awarded the DFC. 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 in his opinion all ten aircrew members exhibited heroic and...
Had he not been reassigned he would have completed a total of 35 combat missions and met the requirement for award of a DFC (i.e., completion of 35 combat missions). After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the supporting documentation he provided, we are not persuaded that his record should be corrected to reflect completion of 28 combat missions or that he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). After a thorough review of his submission and the supporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05942
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBP recommends denial noting the applicant did not provide supporting evidence such as his flight records, crew member logs, or DFC narrative or citation. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03723
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Purple Heart medal. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, no documentation was found to verify award of the Purple Heart Medal. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below. A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Staff evaluation and states that the reason in the delay in the decoration recommendation is that none of his crew were debriefed after they were repatriated from German POW c no one had any knowledge of decorations. The following members of the Board considered this...
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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01326
By letter dated 6 Apr 92, the applicant requested the NPRC to award him the DFC based on the wounds he received on 15 Aug 44, which he contended was his 16th mission. The applicant seems to be requesting the DFC on the basis of both his 14th, or 16th, mission, wherein he states he released bombs from an open bomb bay, and the wounds he received later on what he believes was his 16th, or 22nd, mission on 15 Aug 44, and for which his Purple Heart was presumably awarded. Neither the applicant...