RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02533
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished Flying
Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The 8th Air Force would award the Air Medal for every five missions
flown or each enemy aircraft that was shot down. Instead of awarding
him his fifth Air Medal for shooting down an enemy aircraft on his
last mission, he should have been awarded the DFC, as was customary in
the 8th Air Force. If he had been in England rather than the states
when he was awarded his fifth Air Medal, he would have been awarded
the DFC.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement
and supportive statements.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation,
indicates that the applicant enlisted in the Army of the United States
(Army Air Force) on 9 Nov 42 and was honorably discharged on 30 Aug
45. The WD AGO Form 53-55 also reflects that he was awarded the Air
Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs), the Good Conduct Medal,
Distinguished Unit Badge, and the European African Middle Eastern
Service Medal with four Bronze Service Stars.
No documentation was available to substantiate it; however, it appears
that the applicant retired from the Air Force in 1977 in the grade of
master sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial noting although the applicant’s Report
of Separation reflects award of the Air Medal with four OLCs, his
records only contained the orders/citations for the Air Medal with
three OLCs. Two Air Medals were awarded for accomplishing five combat
missions, and two for shooting down enemy aircraft, which would be the
Air Medal with three OLCs.
AFPC/DPPPR also noted that the applicant submitted a statement from
the individual who was his squadron commander until he was shot down
and taken as a prisoner of war (POW) on 24 Feb 44. He stated that he
believed the applicant had flown the required 25 missions, although
there was a large gap (Apr 44 to Nov 44) between the applicant’s Air
Medals. However, the applicant was shot down on 9 Apr 44 and interned
in Sweden until 15 Oct 44. According to AFPC/DPPPR, since he was
interned in a neutral country, he could not have accomplished any
combat flight missions. His records showed that he completed 13
missions during the period 30 Dec 43 to 9 Apr 44 (when he was shot
down), and only completed one more combat flight mission on 16 Dec 44,
for a total of 14 combat flight missions.
AFPC/DPPPR indicated that the timeline for submitting decorations is
two years from the date of the act or achievement. In the case of
World War II decorations, 3 May 51 was established as the cut-off date
for submission of recommendations for decorations for acts or
achievements during this time period. However, under the Fiscal Year
1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Section 526, which was
enacted into law on 10 Feb 96, this timeline has been waived. Under
this Act, service members may now request award consideration, based
on a written and signed recommendation. However, the written
recommendation must meet two criteria: 1) Be made by someone other
than the member in the member’s chain of command at the time of the
incident and who has firsthand knowledge of the act or achievement;
and 2) be submitted through a Congressional member who can ask a
military service to review a proposal for a decoration based on the
merits of the proposal and the award criteria in existence when the
event occurred. However, the applicant did not avail himself of this
opportunity but has, instead, applied directly to the AFBCMR, without
providing any documentation to substantiate his claim. He has implied
that he flew 25 combat flight missions and, because of the 8th Air
Force policy at that time, he should be awarded the DFC. The
applicant’s records showed that he completed only 14 flights, which
led to award of two Air Medals for completion of five missions for
each Air Medal, and shot down two enemy aircraft, which led to award
of two more Air Medals. Therefore, they could only verify that the
applicant was awarded the Air Medal with three OLCs, instead of the
four that are reflected on his Report of Separation. AFPC/DPPPR
believes the applicant was recognized with the proper number of
decorations and is not eligible for any additional Air Medals or the
DFC.
A complete copy of the DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 20
Sep 02 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. We
believe it should be pointed out that the applicant’s decorated
service and sacrifice for his country has not gone unnoticed.
Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been presented which has shown
to our satisfaction that the applicant met the established criteria
for award of the DFC. In view of the above, and in the absence of
sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02533 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 02, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 17 Sep 02, w/atchs, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.
OLGA M. CRERAR
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02533A
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E. In a letter, dated 26 February 2003, the applicant’s Congressman requests reconsideration of his application and provides additional documentation. Although a copy of the orders/citation to accompany award of the AM, 4 OLC, are unavailable, in his letter of 19 October 2000, the applicant states that he received this...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02730
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be awarded the PH because he was hit by shrapnel from enemy fire and should be awarded the DFC because he completed over 25 combat missions. The applicant also states that during the period in question, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby the DFC was awarded upon the completion of 25 combat missions. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-03616
Furthermore, his medical records indicate that he had an operation. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and states, in part, that there is no evidence he was recommended for, or awarded the DFC. Should the applicant provide additional statements containing specific details regarding his...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03684
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPWCM recommends the applicant’s request for award of the POW Medal be denied. On 22 October 1944, he provided the information that immediately after being shot down, he was picked up by partisans, evading capture by the enemy. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded he should be awarded the PH, DFC, and POW Medal.
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...
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-2004-00644
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00644 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an Oak Leaf Cluster to the Purple Heart (PH) Medal. There is no evidence in his records of a recommendation for award of the DFC. Military Personnel Record Exhibit C. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02073
The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel states, among other things, that but for the applicant’s actions on 5 June 1944, the mission’s command pilot would have been in severe shock and unconscious in a matter of minutes and incapable of the aircraft flight maneuvers for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor. Based on the established 8th Air Force policy of...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed this application and indicated that to be awarded the Purple Heart Medal, a member must provide documentation to support he was wounded as a direct result of enemy action. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect award of the DFC. We note the applicant’s request that his records be corrected to reflect award of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2005-01522
He should be awarded the DFC for his actions on 23 June 1952. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the AmnM is awarded for voluntary risk of life not involving actual combat and the applicant’s actions on 23 June 1952 were previously recognized in the AM he was awarded for numerous operational flights from 8 May 1953 to 23 June 1952. On 14 June 1952, he was awarded...