RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02072
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
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 applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973
at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). Therefore, the following
information was obtained from documentation provided by the applicant.
The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 20 October 1941.
He was honorably discharged on 13 January 1943, and commissioned a second
lieutenant in the Army Air Corps Reserve and entered active duty.
He was promoted to the grade of first lieutenant on 17 October 1944.
He was released from active duty on 8 September 1945.
The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July 1926 and is awarded for
heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight.
The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action
above and beyond the call of duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
the applicant has not provided any documentation showing he was recommended
for the DFC. Therefore, they cannot verify his eligibility for the DFC.
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, was forwarded to the
applicant on 13 September 2002 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After thoroughly reviewing the limited
evidence provided by the applicant, we are not persuaded that he has been
the victim of an error or injustice. The personal sacrifice the applicant
endured for his country is noted and our decision in no way diminishes the
high regard we have for his service; however, insufficient documentary
evidence has been presented to warrant awarding him the DFC. Hence, 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 Docket Number 02-02072 in
Executive Session on 23 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mr. James E. Short, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 4 Sep 02, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 02.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01538
Therefore, the following information has been extracted from the documentation provided by applicant. Regardless, although the Eighth Air Force had an established policy from 1942 to 1944, whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 25 heavy bomber missions, in 1944, the total number of missions for award of a DFC was increased from 25 to 35. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-01538 in...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03794
In BC-2004-02294, the AFBCMR awarded a DFC to an applicant who had also completed more than the required ten missions as a lead navigator and an additional oak leaf cluster for completion of a tour of 32 combat missions. AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that although the applicant’s records indicate that he completed a total of 35 combat missions and he has submitted a DFC recommendation signed by his former commander, in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-01956
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02340
The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation 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 25 Aug 06 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). The OER for the following period, 20 Aug 68 - 14 Aug 69, reported the member had been awarded the DFC for heroism, as well as AMs with 1- 7OLCs. Neither the applicant’s submission nor her...
The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not reflect receipt of the MSM, and his records do not include an order for that award. On 27 Mar 02, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant that his records contained no documentation indicating he was recommended for or awarded the MSM. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03495 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) Medal and Wound Chevron for his July 1944 service-connected wound and concussion in Normandy, France. After a thorough review of his submission and the supporting documentation he provided, to include a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03914
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has just recently discovered an attachment to his Airman’s Medal, special order GB----, dated 2 Sep 94, which was completed two days after said order, which states, “The Secretary of the Air Force has considered this individual for an additional 10 percent retirement pay in connection with the act of heroism that warranted this decoration. Review by the Secretary of the Air Force determined that...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01411 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in...