Search Decisions

Decision Text

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).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The commanding officer of the 65th Bombardment Squadron (65  BS)  made
the recommendation for the DFC on 23 Jun 45.

He provides copies of  a  28  Feb  02  email  from  the  former  pilot
recommending  the  radio  operator  for  the  DFC  and  a  23  Jun  45
recommendation from the 65 BS commander for the DFC for the pilot.  In
his email, the pilot claims the entire crew was assured they would  be
recommended for the DFC and, 50 years later, he  was  finally  awarded
the DFC. The former squadron flight  surgeon  provides  an  8  Mar  01
statement asserting the crew was put in for the DFC but the award  was
never processed. The former surgeon contends the pilot, the  applicant
and the radio operator deserve the award. The applicant also  provides
a narrative of his exploits entitled “My Lucky Dice.”

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s records  were  destroyed  in  the  1973  fire  at  the
National Personnel Records  Center.   The  following  information  was
extracted from official documents provided by the applicant  (Exhibits
A and C).

According to his Report of Separation, the  applicant  entered  active
duty on (7-?) Feb 44.  He was deployed to New Guinea on 22 May 44.

On 10 Oct 44,the applicant was the co-pilot of a B-24 aircraft  taking
part in a mass formation daylight strike against the strongly defended
and strategically important Japanese oil refinery base at  Balikpapen,
Borneo. The crew executed a perfect bombing run, during which a  shell
struck the aircraft’s bomb bay and exploded in the  fuselage,  killing
the navigator and  wounding  three  of  the  gunners.  Although  badly
damaged by machine gun and anti-aircraft fire, the B-24  returned  and
landed successfully.

The applicant returned to the US on 11 Jun 45. On 29 Jun 45, applicant
was  awarded  the  AM   4OLC   for   meritorious   achievement   while
participating in an aerial flight on 10  Oct  44.  The  applicant  was
separated on 25 Aug 45 with 1 year, 6 months and  18  days  of  active
service.

On 4 Jun 02, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA  invited  the  applicant  to  provide  any
official documents pertinent to his AFBCMR appeal since  his  military
records had  been  destroyed  by  fire.   The  applicant’s  additional
submission is at Exhibit C. Following  their  review,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRSP
administratively corrected the applicant’s  Report  of  Separation  to
reflect receipt of the following decorations: American Campaign medal,
Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with one  Silver  Star,  World  War  II
Victory Medal. The applicant was provided a DD Form 215 on 18 Jul 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPPR  notes  that  the  applicant  did   not   provide   any
documentation showing he was recommended for  award  of  the  DFC.  He
submitted documentation pertaining to [the pilot] of the  same  10 Oct
44 combat mission flight. The [pilot], who also received the  AM  4OLC
for the same incident, filed an appeal for the DFC and  his  case  was
denied by the AFBCMR [on 7 May 02]. Since the  applicant  was  awarded
the AM 4OLC for his accomplishments on 10 Oct 44, he  cannot  also  be
awarded the DFC for those accomplishments.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments  provided  by  the
applicant, 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 26 Jul 02 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________



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 error or injustice to warrant upgrading the  AM  4OLC
for the 10 Oct 44 mission to the requested DFC. We took notice of  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of his case.  We
also acknowledge his decorated service and  significant  contributions
in defense of his country. However, no evidence has been presented  to
our satisfaction showing that he was, or should have been, awarded the
DFC. Further, he received the AM 4OLC for his achievements on  10  Oct
44 and cannot be awarded  another  decoration  for  the  same  action.
Therefore, we agree with the recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice. In view of the above and  absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, 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 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 12 September 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 relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01288 was considered:

   Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B. Applicant's Reconstructed Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 21 Jun 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jun 02.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102528

    Original file (0102528.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 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-2003-02015

    Original file (BC-2003-02015.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-03110

    Original file (BC-2002-03110.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A United States Army Air Forces Report of Aircraft Accident indicates that on 12 Aug 44, the applicant was the pilot of an aircraft that effected a normal takeoff. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial stating that there was no indication in the applicant’s records he was recommended for award of any decoration for the incident that occurred on 12 Aug 44. Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been presented...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03110

    Original file (BC-2002-03110.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A United States Army Air Forces Report of Aircraft Accident indicates that on 12 Aug 44, the applicant was the pilot of an aircraft that effected a normal takeoff. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial stating that there was no indication in the applicant’s records he was recommended for award of any decoration for the incident that occurred on 12 Aug 44. Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been presented...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200531

    Original file (0200531.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02301

    Original file (BC-2006-02301.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02301 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 4 FEBRUARY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) awards. It appears he was recommended for the DFC as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01738

    Original file (BC-2005-01738.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01738 INDEX CODE: 107.00 (Member/Uncle) COUNSEL: None (Applicant/Nephew) 063-14-5768 HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 NOV 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncle be awarded the Silver Star (SS) [or some other fitting award - See Exhibit E] for heroic actions performed in World War II...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01326

    Original file (BC-2004-01326.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02176

    Original file (BC-2004-02176.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s previous request to have his DFC, 3OLC upgraded to the SS Medal for his action on 24 May 1969. He was told at the time, the 8th TFW would only submit a recommendation for one SS Medal and since the other pilot was the first to destroy 24 trucks, he would receive the higher award. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...