RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01646
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given credit for an enemy aircraft shot down on 21 October 1951.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He shot down a MIG 15 on his 51st combat mission  over  North  Korea  on  21
October 1951.  The kill was confirmed at the time by  gun  camera  film  and
verification by his wingman, which observed the kill.  The  kill  was  later
officially certified by the 334th Fighter Squadron Operations Officer on  an
official combat summary form.  Information was released  to  the  public  by
the 4th Fighter Wing for publication in the AF Times  and  in  a  Home  Town
News Release.  The kill was officially documented in his AF Form 11  and  WD
AGO Form 66.

He was shot down on 24 October 1951 three days after his MIG kill,  and  was
initially listed as Killed-In-Action (KIA).  He was in fact  taken  prisoner
and remained a Prisoner Of War (POW) in North Korea  for  approximately  two
years.  Upon return to active duty, he noted that  his  official  Air  Force
records held the documentation of his MIG kill.

In 2001, he  was  made  aware  of  the  archival  files  at  the  Air  Force
Historical Research Agency (AFHRA).   In  checking  those  records  via  the
Internet, he discovered that his kill was not listed.  With assistance  from
a general officer friend, they attempted to get his  MIG  kill  recorded  in
their archives but, after several months of correspondence  and  a  personal
visit by the general, the staff at AFHRA declined to accept his official  AF
records as justification for entering his  kill  in  their  records  without
further evidence.  The fact that the October 1951  histories  of  the  334th
Fighter Squadron and the 4th Fighter Wing did not reflect his kill was  part
of their justification.  They also wanted a copy of a  Far  East  Air  Force
special order, which is  normally  published  to  validate  each,  confirmed
enemy kill, and which gives credit to an individual pilot.  He had  no  such
order in his files.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
334th Fighter Squadron certificate, dated  1  November  1951,  AF  Form  11,
dated 21  November 1968, WD AGO Form 66, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter  prepared  by  the
appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFHRA/RS recommended denial.  They indicated that according to  AFI  84-105,
chapter 5, the AFHRA confirms awards of USAF  aerial  victory  credits  from
authoritative sources, principally an official order awarding  credit  or  a
victory credit board report showing award of the credit.   If  no  order  or
board report is found, AFHRA searches unit histories, intelligence  reports,
and operations reports for overwhelming evidence that credit for  an  aerial
victory was awarded.

For the Korean War, the Air Force Historical Research Agency requires a  Far
East Air Forces (FEAF) general order, or  documentation  on  which  such  an
order would be based,  to  confirm  official  award  of  an  aerial  victory
credit.  By October 1951, FEAF had a system in place  for  awarding  credits
by the issuance of such orders.  A search of  hundreds  of  sequential  FEAF
and Fifth Air Force general orders issued from  21  October  1951  to  April
1952 revealed only one that mentioned the applicant, and  that  awarded  him
an air medal for the period 28 June 1951 to 25 September  1951,  before  his
claimed victory.

The absence of a general order awarding  the  applicant  an  aerial  victory
credit is likely neither an accident nor an oversight.   These  orders  were
derived from aircrew debriefings, witness statements,  and  reviews  of  gun
camera film, the same sources that theater intelligence used to  access  the
results of daily combat operations.  These assessments would  have  recorded
an aerial victory reported by the applicant in his  post-mission  debriefing
and subsequently confirmed by gun camera film.  Mention of  any  claimed  or
confirmed aerial victory on the  date  in  question  is  absent  from  these
assessments.  Both Fifth Air Force and  Far  East  Air  Forces  intelligence
summaries confirmed that on 21 October 1951 two enemy aircraft were  damaged
but none were shot down.  The same evidence from which  the  summaries  were
derived would have been  available  to  any  FEAF  board  evaluating  aerial
victory claims.  Moreover, the October  history  of  the  applicant’s  wing,
drafted during November 1951, lists all aerial victory credit claims for  17
December 1950 through 9 November 1951 but does not include  the  applicant’s
name among those who claimed to have damaged enemy aircraft  on  21  October
1951.

The strongest contemporary evidence in favor of  the  applicant’s  claim  is
the certificate signed by the  squadron  operations  officer.   Without  the
support of an aircrew debriefing confirmed by  gun  camera  film,  the  FEAF
authorities  would  not  have  considered  this  certificate  authoritative.
Other evidence presented carries far less weight.  An  eyewitness  statement
presented 50 years after the  alleged  event  cannot  take  precedence  over
contemporary documentation indicating  the  contrary.   The  press  releases
report “probable,” not confirmed, kills.  Finally the  personnel  forms  are
outside the operational chain and cannot  be  considered  authoritative  for
confirming aerial victory credits.

The AFHRA has carefully reviewed the  documentation  available  in  its  own
archives and could  locate  neither  a  general  order  awarding  an  aerial
victory credit nor evidence that would  support  the  issuance  of  such  an
order.   On  the  contrary,  theater  intelligence  summaries  derived  from
sources identical to those used  to  verify  aerial  victory  credit  claims
clearly state that on 21 October 1951 USAF claims  against  the  enemy  were
limited  to  two  aircraft  damaged  and  none  destroyed.   An  FEAF  board
determining aerial victory credit  claims  would  have  evaluated  identical
evidence and reached the same conclusion.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluation  and  provided  a  response,  with
attachments, that 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 an error or an 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  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  The personal sacrifice  the  applicant
endured for his country is noted and our decision should in  no  way  lessen
his service; however, insufficient documentary evidence has  been  presented
to warrant awarding him credit  for  an  enemy  aircraft  shot  down  on  21
October 1951.  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 an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-01646
in Executive Session on 24 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 30 May 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 June 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 July 2002, w/atchs.




                                ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                Panel Chair