RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02868
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His unusual flying skills saved his B-29 crew from crashing on 5 June 1944.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from the crew
members of the B-29 (Georgia Peach) 793rd Squadron, dated 15 November 2001.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During the time period in question the applicant was serving on extended
active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel.
Applicant was separated on 28 December 1946, in the grade of lieutenant
colonel, under the provisions of WD Cir 313 1945, paragraph 15d (Physical
Disability). He served a total of 5 years, 3 months, and 20 days total
active military service.
On 27 November 2000, Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC)
denied the applicant’s request for the DFC.
On 31 January 2002, the applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected in item 28,
to add award of the Air Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial. They indicated that the applicant’s
original DFC request was forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force
Personnel Council (SAFPC) and was disapproved on 27 November 2000. The
recommending officials were informed they had one year from the date of
disapproval to resubmit with additional documentation. The recommending
officials did not submit any additional documentation prior to the one-year
deadline; therefore SAFPC Awards and Decorations Board now considers the
DFC recommendation issue closed. The applicant was informed that, if he
believed there was an injustice, he could appeal to the AFBCMR with
additional information.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant provided a response, with attachments, which 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 warranting award of the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC). 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. We note the letter from the crew members of the B-29 (Georgia
Peach) 793rd Squadron who indicate that on 5 June 1944 the applicant saved
their plane and lives through his skillful piloting due to the B-29 losing
all four engines. While the Board does recognize his extraordinary
accomplishments in the defense of our nation during wartime, we note, there
is no indication in the applicant’s personnel records to substantiate that
he was recommended by anyone in his chain of command for the DFC. In this
respect, we note the letter submitted in support of the request indicates
that the commanding general congratulated the crew upon their return.
Clearly, the general would have been in the best position to judge whether
the applicant’s accomplishments merited the DFC. In view of the foregoing,
and 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 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 02-02868
Executive Session on 21 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. James E. Short, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 August 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 7 October 2002,
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 October 2002.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 October 2002, w/atchs.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02836
If one member of a crew receives the DFC all members should. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that in 1944 he and others were selected to be lead crew and would receive the DFC upon completion of 30 missions. He states that AFPC has erred in their recommendation and that he should be granted the medal as well as the recognition of a certificate.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00478
On 4 November 2002, the applicant was awarded the Air Medal 4th OLC for heroism while participating in aerial flight on 23 June 1944. AFPC/DPPPR states that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) reviewed the award recommendation package and disapproved the DFC, but approved award of the Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters for heroism. The applicant has provided no evidence that was unavailable to SAFPC at the time they considered his case and we are unpersuaded by the...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02178
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02178 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 January 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His mission on 26 September 1944, be considered a combat mission and he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03307
The Air Medal (AM) that was awarded to him on 4 November 2002 by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) is not the appropriate decoration for his actions. The control cables were severed, and the aircraft could not be landed safely without the cables controlling the flaps. DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in flight.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04106
The application was returned on 8 January 2002, without action and, again, the applicant was informed that he needed to obtain a signed and endorsed recommendation package and submit it through congressional channels. The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council Board denied award of the DFC, but awarded the applicant the AM 1/OLC for meritorious achievement on 15 August 1970. In his third request (submitted into congressional channels), the applicant obtained a signed and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02015
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and additional campaign credit for the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal be denied. DPPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC for actions on 10 October 1944; additional campaign credit for the Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal; and, award of the Air Medal with fourth oak leaf cluster for the period 23...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02335 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His World War II Air Medal be upgraded to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02528 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He and his crew be awarded an unspecified decoration for destroying enemy jet fighters during a bombing mission from Italy to Berlin, Germany, on 24 Mar 45. On 12 Apr 96, a Congressional representative requested that the applicant and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02508
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 October 2005, for review and response within 30 days. We took note of the documentation provided in support of the applicant's request for award of the DFC for completion of 14 lead crew missions and an additional AM for completion of his last five missions. ...