RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03591
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Air Medal (AM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He flew approximately 400 hours into a combat zone in Korea over a period
of approximately 9 months.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his Individual
Flight Records. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force 15 Jul
48. He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 21 Nov 51. He was
discharged from the Air Force on 2 Jun 53. He served 5 years, 8 months,
and 15 days on active duty.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s available military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPPPR
states that the applicant served on an overseas tour in Japan from 30 Oct
52 to 1 May 53. His records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the
National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO. On 22 Jan 02, he was
informed that the documents he provided did not indicate that he was
assigned to Korea or that he flew over Korea in direct support of
operations. He was also asked to provide anything showing he was
recommended for the AM.
His Individual Flight Records show that he was assigned to the 6th Carrier
Squadron in Japan, but do not indicate that he flew into or over Korea or
that any of his flights were combat flight missions. He stated that he was
not recommended for the AM but believes that his Individual Flight Records
should be enough for a recommendation. He has not provided any
documentation to verify any of his claims. The DPPPR evaluation, with
attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded and states that practically every flight he made
was into Korea. The first and far right columns gives the destination of
each flight. They indicate that he flew into K1, K2, K3, K13, K16, K18,
and K47. He also flew into K31 on numerous occasions. These are airfields
in Korea, the "K" stands for Korea. K1 is Pusan, K2 is Tageau, K16 is
Seoul and etc.
In support of his request, applicant provided additional copies of
documents he previously provided. His complete submission, with
attachments, is 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. 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 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. In this respect, while it appears that the applicant may have
participated in combat operations in Korea, we see no evidence of
meritorious service or service that was accomplished distinctively, above
and beyond that expected of professional airmen. The fact that an
individual participated in aerial combat missions in itself, is
insufficient justification for award of the Air Medal. Therefore, in the
absence of persuasive 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 Docket Number 01-03591 in
Executive Session on 25 Apr 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Dec 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 25 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 02, w/atchs.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01534
None of the applicant’s Air Medals were awarded for a specified number of combat flight missions; they were awarded by the 15th Air Force for specific dates as follows: - Basic Air Medal (AM), awarded for the period 17 August-3 September 1944, by General Order (GO) 2789, dated 3 October 1944. Even though the applicant has not substantiated that he was ever recommended for award of the Fifth and Sixth Oak Leaf Clusters to the Air Medal, after a thorough review of his submission, the Board...
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. In addition, his Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 30 November 1964 through 16 June 1965 states that he flew 17 missions into Vietnam during the rating period. Although AFPC has administratively corrected his record to reflect award of the AM basic and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), there is no evidence he was ever submitted for an additional AM.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01027 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) medal. He was awarded the PH by a general officer while he was in the hospital. He recently received a formal letter of presentation from the President of Korea which included the new ribbon and medal.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02528 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He and his crew be awarded an unspecified decoration for destroying enemy jet fighters during a bombing mission from Italy to Berlin, Germany, on 24 Mar 45. On 12 Apr 96, a Congressional representative requested that the applicant and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02015
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and additional campaign credit for the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal be denied. DPPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC for actions on 10 October 1944; additional campaign credit for the Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal; and, award of the Air Medal with fourth oak leaf cluster for the period 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00644
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00644 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an Oak Leaf Cluster to the Purple Heart (PH) Medal. There is no evidence in his records of a recommendation for award of the DFC. Military Personnel Record Exhibit C. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01125
There is no evidence to support he completed 29 missions required, at that time, for award of the DFC or that he met any other eligibility criteria for award of the DFC. The applicant’s records currently reflect he was awarded the AM twice and is entitled to the AM w/1OLC. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 24 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00679
“I did something in 1945 that has never been done before in the history of the Air Force. He believes the basis for his uncle’s request is not the 500 hours of combat flight time but related to another incident. Evidence does; however, support the applicant’s award of the AM with 2OLC for his acts of meritorious achievement in the Pacific Theater and we note the Air Force has administratively corrected his record to reflect this award.
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.