RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01531
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given credit for two enemy aircraft shot down on 1 January 1945.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the  records  to  be  in  error  or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support  of  the  appeal  are  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 their agency  relies
on the time-tested historical principle  that  contemporary  decisions
awarding individual aerial kills should be  respected.   Documentation
available at the  Agency  indicates  that  rather  than  award  shared
victory credits for the 1 January 1945 action in which  the  applicant
participated, the ---th Fighter Squadron (FS), and later the  ---  Air
Force, awarded the applicant a full credit for one of the two  ME-109s
that he  destroyed  with  possible  assistance  and  probably  awarded
another ---th FS pilot a full credit for the other assisted kill  that
took place during the action.  To approve the applicant’s claim  would
definitely raise the total number of enemy aircraft that the ---th  FS
destroyed on 1 January 1945 from 23 to 24.  They  are  confident  from
their review of official accounts in the unit histories that the total
of 23 is accurate.  The official record also indicates  that  none  of
the P-47 pilots assigned to the ---th Fighter  Group,  stationed  with
the applicant’s P-51  group  at  the  advanced  air  base  near  Asch,
Belgium, received partial aerial victory  credits  for  the  1 January
1945 action.

The AFHRA is the USAF  Agency  responsible  for  the  verification  of
aerial victory credits.  Neither the  applicant  nor  Congressman  Jim
Hansen has ever asked the AFHRA directly  to  verify  the  applicant’s
claim for an additional credit.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a  response,  with  attachments,  which  is  at
Exhibit E.

The applicant  provided  additional  documentation,  with  attachment,
which is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

AFHRA/RSO reviewed  this  case  again  after  the  applicant  provided
additional  documentation  and  they  still  recommend  denial.   They
indicated that they believe  that  the  conclusions  of  the  American
Fighter Aces Association (AFAA) were made  on  the  basis  of  limited
evidence, some of which is unofficial.  The Agency, in  contrast,  has
reviewed all official documentation it can find that  is  relevant  to
the  Asch  dogfight  and  concluded  that   contemporary   authorities
correctly awarded one of seven pilots the ME-109 aerial victory credit
now claimed by the applicant.  Neither does the documentation  support
the hypothesis that authorities changed the number of credits  awarded
to the applicant.  In fairness to the seven other pilots who  received
credit for destroying ME-109s over Asch, Belgium on  1  January  1945,
the Agency must affirm the official record as it  stands.   As  always
the Agency is ready to evaluate any new  evidence  based  on  official
documentation that may come to light on this issue.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant provided  a  response,  with  attachments,  through  his
congressman’s office (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we  are  not
persuaded that relief should be granted.  The applicant’s  contentions
that he should be credited with an additional shoot-down of  an  enemy
aircraft during a dogfight on 1 January 1945  over  Asch,  Belgium  is
duly noted.  However, it appears that shortly after the 1 January 1945
battle, the --- Air Force and the IX Tactical Air Force Aerial Victory
Credit Boards reviewed the events of that day and, based upon official
intelligence and operational reports, determined what credits would be
awarded to the various pilots involved in the encounter.  As a result,
it appears that the applicant was awarded a total of 3 aerial  victory
credits for his  endeavors.   The  documentation  submitted  with  the
applicant’s  appeal  is  noted;  however,  it  does  not  sufficiently
persuade us to change the  determination  made  by  those  individuals
tasked  with  assessing  the   evidence   available   and   making   a
determination regarding these aerial credits.   While  we  acknowledge
that the American Fighter Aces Association has conferred “ace”  status
on the applicant as a result of the events of 1 January 1945, we  find
no persuasive evidence that their determination is more accurate  than
the one done by the Air Force at the time  of  the  contested  events.
The Board recognizes the applicant’s extraordinary accomplishments  in
defense of our nation during wartime and our decision should in no way
diminish  the  high  regard  we  have  for   his   service;   however,
insufficient  documentary  evidence  has  been  presented  to  warrant
awarding him an additional aerial victory  credit.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 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.
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-
01531 in Executive Session on 20 June 2002 and 10 October 2002,  under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
                 Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 April 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 10 May 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 May 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 June 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 June 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 July 2002.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFHRA/RSO, dated 23 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 July 2002.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Congressman Hansen, dated 15 August 2002,
               W/atchs.





                       JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
                       Panel Chair