Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200531
Original file (0200531.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00531
                       INDEX CODE:  110.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded  the  Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received the Air Medal (AM) with four oak leaf  clusters,  but  his
actions in combat clearly merits the higher award.

He further states that the entire 5th Air Force received  the  AM  for
the combat mission, but he was individually nominated for the DFC  for
landing a damaged aircraft as a result of combat action.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.
 The 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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR states the applicant  has  not  provided  a  recommendation
package or any documentation from his chain of command to support that
he was recommended for the DFC or, that an award package was submitted
through official channels.  The applicant was awarded the AM  w/4  OLC
for his actions during the combat mission in Oct 44, therefore, he  is
not  eligible  for  another  decoration  for   the   same   date   and
accomplishment.

Based on  the  information  provided,  DPPPR  recommends  denying  the
applicant's 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   submitted
previously received documentation to support his request for award  of
the DFC (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 an  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale 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.  We believe it should be  pointed  out  that
the applicant's decorated service and sacrifice for  his  country  has
not gone  unnoticed.   Notwithstanding  this,  no  evidence  has  been
presented which has shown to our satisfaction to support or prove  the
applicant  was  nominated  and  awarded  the  DFC.   Furthermore,  the
applicant was awarded the AM w/4 OLC for his actions on 10 Oct 44  and
is not eligible to receive another decoration for  the  same  actions.
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 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  02-
00531 in Executive Session on May 7, 2002, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                       Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, undated.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 8 Apr 02.




                             VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201288

    Original file (0201288.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01288 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Medal with 4th Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 4OLC) awarded for accomplishments on 10 Oct 44 be upgraded to a Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02533

    Original file (BC-2002-02533.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the case of World War II decorations, 3 May 51 was established as the cut-off date for submission of recommendations for decorations for acts or achievements during this time period. The applicant’s records showed that he completed only 14 flights, which led to award of two Air Medals for completion of five missions for each Air Medal, and shot down two enemy aircraft, which led to award of two more Air Medals. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02730

    Original file (BC-2002-02730.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be awarded the PH because he was hit by shrapnel from enemy fire and should be awarded the DFC because he completed over 25 combat missions. The applicant also states that during the period in question, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby the DFC was awarded upon the completion of 25 combat missions. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201099

    Original file (0201099.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his WD AGO Form 53-55 and a Letter of Recommendation, dated 29 May 1944, indicating that he completed a total of 25 combat missions and was awarded the DFC and AM, 3 OLC. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that at the time he completed a total of 25 combat missions a member would be awarded a DFC and upon completion of every five combat...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03175

    Original file (BC-2005-03175.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03175 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 APR 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His father be awarded the Air Medal (AM) Silver Oak Leaf Cluster (SOLC) and the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for completing 14 lead crew missions with the 755th Squadron. We took...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200101

    Original file (0200101.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He stated that the DFC was awarded for completion of 35 combat flight missions. Therefore, the basis for the applicant’s claim that all other crew members of the 2 Oct 44 combat flight mission received the DFC is unsubstantiated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration through his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04106

    Original file (BC-2003-04106.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The application was returned on 8 January 2002, without action and, again, the applicant was informed that he needed to obtain a signed and endorsed recommendation package and submit it through congressional channels. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council Board denied award of the DFC, but awarded the applicant the AM 1/OLC for meritorious achievement on 15 August 1970. In his third request (submitted into congressional channels), the applicant obtained a signed and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02508

    Original file (BC-2005-02508.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 October 2005, for review and response within 30 days. We took note of the documentation provided in support of the applicant's request for award of the DFC for completion of 14 lead crew missions and an additional AM for completion of his last five missions. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00510

    Original file (BC-2007-00510.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was never awarded an additional AM for his 26th through 30th combat missions In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the former 67th Deputy Squadron Navigator recommending him for award of the DFC and an additional oak leaf cluster to the AM, and a list of his combat missions. The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July 1926 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00420

    Original file (BC-2007-00420.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In view of his completion of a total of 37 combat missions and based on the Eighth Air Force established policy of awarding an AM upon the completion of every five heavy bomber missions and awarding a DFC upon the completion of 35 combat missions, he should be awarded the DFC and an additional AM. In view of the above, and since the applicant never received a DFC for his completion of a combat...