RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-01403
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His award of the Silver Star (SS) be upgraded to the Medal of
Honor (MoH) for his actions on 26 Nov 43.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After his aircraft was shot by a German fighter pilot, he was
responsible for getting the pilot and crew home safely and should
have been awarded the MoH.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of four
letters from the Army Review Boards Agency; WD AGO Form 53-55,
Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge, a
Personal Narrative; and various other supporting documents.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty from 23 Jun 42 through 27 Oct
45. He was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 11 days of foreign
service.
According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 11 Jan
44, he was wounded in action.
According to documentation provided by the applicant, he was a
Prisoner of War (POW) in Germany from 11 Jan 44 to 3 May 45 and
was assigned to the 358th Bomb Squadron, 303rd Bomb Group.
According to sections 3741, 6241, and 8741 of Title 10, United
States Code (references (m), (n), and (o), respectively), the MoH
may be awarded to members of the United States (US) Armed Forces
who distinguish themselves conspicuously by gallantry and
intrepidity at the risk of their lives above and beyond the call
of duty under any of the following circumstances:
a. While engaged in an action against an enemy of the US.
b. While engaged in military operations involving conflict
with an opposing foreign force.
c. While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an
armed conflict against an opposing Armed Force in which the US is
not a belligerent party.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an
error or an injustice. In order to reasonably consider the
applicants request, he need to submit a recommendation from
someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement preferably
within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a
proposed citation, and eyewitness statements. The applicant has
made several previous requests for the award and the decoration
board for the Department of the Army has previously advised the
applicant that he did not meet the criteria for the MOH and the SS
is the appropriate decoration to recognize him for his actions.
A review of the applicants records revealed that he should have
been awarded the Prisoner of War Medal (PWM), American Campaign
Medal (ACM), and World War II Victory Medal (WWIIVM) and his
official military personnel records will be administratively
corrected by AFPC/DPSOR.
A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFHRA/RS recommends denial indicating they agree with the findings
of DPSID, as they did not find any information that would support
upgrading the SS to the MoH. The official unit history does
confirm the actions of the applicant mentioned in the narrative he
submitted and it also makes clear that the bombardier of the
aircraft was recommended for the MoH but later downgraded to the
Distinguished Service Medal (DSM). However, there is no mention
of any submission of a MoH for the applicant and they should not
second guess the decision of the applicants unit.
A complete copy of the AFHRA evaluation is at Exhibit D.
SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating the applicant has not
provided sufficient justification or documentation to support the
upgrade of the approved SS to the MoH. They must assume
regularity in the award submission and nomination process in that
his leadership at the time submitted and approved the appropriate
level of decoration.
A complete copy of the MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 14 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit F).
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 applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility
(OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
We note that AFPC/DPSID has determined the applicants eligibility
for the award of the Prisoner of War Medal (PWM), American
Campaign Medal (ACM), and World War II Victory Medal (WWIIVM) and
will correct his records administratively. Therefore, aside from
the administrative corrections noted above, we find no basis to
recommend granting relief beyond that rendered administratively.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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
BC-2002-01403 in Executive Session on 29 Jul 14, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2002-01403 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Jan 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 23 Jan 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 7 Feb 14
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05128
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05128 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00139
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00139 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Silver Star (SS) Medal. The applicant claims that the Lieutenant General, Commander of the Fifth Air Force, awarded him the SS Medal in Apr-May 53. We note the documentation he provided reflects for the time period in question he enlisted in the Navy and therefore...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03117
They state, in part, that based upon the criteria used in 1943 there is no basis for any award. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the Congressman McIntyres office, on behalf of the applicant, via electronic mail (email) on 12 Aug 13 for review and comment within 30 days. Although official documents do reference the co-pilot being wounded, there...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01991
NPRC records do not show he was awarded the Aerial Gunner Badge or the Aircrew Member Badge. However, he was awarded both since he completed training and served in a unit that completed combat missions. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. USAF/A3O-AIF recommends approval of the request for the Aircrew Member Badge.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01539
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. While the deceased member was a POW from 31 Jan 45 to 29 Apr 45, the applicant did not submit documentation which verifies the deceased...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04528
According to the PACAF/DP, the awards board had been directed to consider the two enlisted crew members for SSs. However, the Air Force Decorations Board considered and denied the request. h. On 23 May 84, the new PACAF/CV reviewed the nomination packages and recommended both the enlisted crew members for SS.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01321
While the applicant has provided a detailed account of how the injury occurred, he has not provided an eyewitness statement or medical documentation substantiating the injury was received and treated. In order to present a request to the PH Review Board, a detailed personal account of the circumstances surrounding the injury, medical documentation to substantiate medical treatment was received and if possible, an eyewitness account from an individual who saw the applicant injured. THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01059
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01059 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The decedent is awarded the following awards and decorations: 1. Based on a review of his official military personnel records, he should have been awarded the following awards during his service from 6 Jun 41 to 10 Jun 42: BSM, PWM, PUC w/2 BOLC,...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02153
STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the information provided by the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA), on 6 Aug 45, the pilot was awarded the DSC for his work on the Manhattan Project and his participation in the first atomic bomb mission on 6 Aug 45. By his high degree of skill in directing work with the atomic bomb, and great personal risk in placing the powder charge in the bomb during flight, the former service member distinguished himself, reflecting the highest credit on...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01090
Under the new policy an individual was considered for award of the AM after completing 250 operational hours and for the DFC after 500 hours. No documentation was submitted indicating the applicant completed 500 operational flying hours. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Through a letter from his son, he contends that based upon the AFHRA/RS description of the requirements for award of flying decorations in WWII, the Air...