ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1997-01417

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

In the request for reconsideration, submitted through  his  congressman,  it
is requested that the applicant be awarded the  Distinguished  Flying  Cross
(DFC).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.

Information extracted from the  applicant’s  initial  appeal  reveals  that,
during the period of 23 November 1943 to 11 August 1945, he was assigned  to
the XXX Fighter Squadron (Australia).  The applicant states that,  in  1943,
the governing regulation required 100 hours of combat  flight  missions  for
award of the Air Medal, another 100 combat hours for  an  oak  leaf  cluster
and, after 300 hours  of  combat  flight  missions,  the  DFC  was  awarded.
However, the regulation was revised and the eligibility  for  award  of  the
DFC was changed to a pilot having to shoot down two enemy  aircraft  in  one
mission.  After applicant’s departure from the  unit,  his  former  squadron
commander informed him that the regulation had again changed  and  that  all
flight leaders leaving the theater were eligible to be recommended  for  the
DFC.  On 12 December 1945, in response to applicant’s letter  of  20 October
1945, the Awards and Decorations Officer, Headquarters Far East Air  Forces,
informed the applicant that the 24 August 1945 recommendation  for  the  DFC
had been disapproved; instead, he received the fifth  oak  leaf  cluster  to
the Air Medal for operational missions between 27 February and 2 July 1945.

The applicant was honorably discharged from the Army Air Corps in the  grade
of captain on 17 April 1946.  He had completed a total of 11 months  and  24
days of continental service and 1 year, 8 months  and  24  days  of  foreign
service.

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on  7 October  1997.
A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for  its
decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings,  which  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

Requests for reconsideration of applicant’s appeal for  award  of  the  DFC,
submitted through congressional channels, were denied by  the  Board  (refer
to Exhibit F).

In  the  most  recent  reconsideration  request,   submitted   through   his
congressman, applicant’s brother-in-law provided a  letter  summarizing  the
applicant’s service in the World War II Pacific Theater.  In  addition,  the
former commander has provided a personal statement and a copy of a  proposed
citation to accompany the award of the DFC.  The complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ  AFPC/DPPPR,  reviewed  the  applicant’s
most recent  submission  and  states  that  the  applicant’s  brother-in-law
provided no additional  facts  regarding  the  applicant’s  service  or  his
claims for the DFC.  The applicant’s former squadron  commander  provided  a
proposed citation for award of the DFC for actions on 29 April 1945  and  on
11 May 1945.  There is no endorsement by the next  higher  official  or  any
other official in the [then] chain of command.

DPPPR states that the applicant did not provide  any  documentation  showing
the criteria of the XXX Fighter  Squadron/XXX  Fighter  Group/XX  Air  Force
regarding award of the Air Medal (AM) and DFC being based  on  combat  hours
flown, instead of  the  number  of  combat  missions  flown.   There  is  no
documentation showing any unit based award  of  the  AM  and  DFC  on  hours
flown, only on the  number  of  missions  flown.   Furthermore,  the  former
squadron commander’s recommendation for  award  of  the  DFC  was  processed
through administrative channels  and  disapproved  in  accordance  with  the
criteria of that time.  The applicant has stated that he did  not  meet  the
criteria that was established at that time.  The proposed  citation,  signed
by the applicant’s former squadron commander, is  for  two  specific  dates,
not for either of the  reasons  the  DFC  was  initially  requested  by  the
applicant; i.e., completion of  300  hours  of  combat  flight  missions  or
having shot down two enemy aircraft on one combat flight  mission.   No  new
facts have been provided that would merit award of the DFC.  Without a  copy
of each Air Medal citation, with dates and reason for the  award,  DPPPR  is
unable to  verify  that  the  applicant  has  not  already  been  awarded  a
decoration for the two dates used by his former squadron  commander.   DPPPR
recommends the applicant’s request for award of the DFC be denied.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  applicant  on  30  May
2003 for review and response.   As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit I).  However,  a  Member  of  Congress  has
submitted a personal letter in behalf of the applicant.  He states that  new
evidence is incredibly difficult to obtain due to the length  of  time  that
has elapsed since the original application.  He  firmly  believes  that  the
word of two former Air Force officers, with the most  direct  connection  to
these events, should suffice.  The  Air  Force  has  continually  cited  the
absence of an official endorsement while not providing an  official  denial.
The only  documentation  remotely  close  to  a  denial  is  a  letter  from
Headquarters, Far East Air Forces, dated  12  December  1945  in  which  the
disapproval is alluded to.  The applicant has repeatedly offered to give  up
his fifth oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal in exchange for  the  DFC.   The
applicant was put in for the DFC in  August  of  1945  and  he  should  have
received  it.   Bureaucracy,  a  cold  paper  trail,  officers  new  to  the
applicant’s chain of command, not familiar with his  acts  of  heroism,  has
prevented him from receiving this medal.   The  complete  submission  is  at
Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in  support
of the appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant’s records should  be
corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished  Flying  Cross  (DFC).   The
applicant’s aerial achievements  are  noted  and  our  decision  in  no  way
lessens the value of his contributions while in  the  service;  however,  we
find  insufficient  documentary  evidence  has  been  presented  to  warrant
awarding the relief sought in this application.  There  is  nothing  in  the
information provided which shows to our  satisfaction  any  irregularity  in
the Commanding General’s decision, based on some type of criteria,  to  deny
the DFC and  award  the  fifth  oak  leaf  cluster  to  the  Air  Medal  for
operational missions between 27 February and 2 July 1945.  In  addition,  no
documentation has been provided to show the local criteria for awarding  Air
Medals and DFCs  to  members  of  the  applicant’s  squadron.   Because  the
applicant’s records were destroyed, we were unable to ascertain why  he  was
awarded the five Air Medals.  To assist  the  applicant  in  his  quest  for
award of the DFC, we recommend that he contact other members of his  flight,
squadron, wing, and numbered Air Force to determine the  criteria  used  for
the award of their DFC.  He can also  provide  the  criteria  used  for  the
former squadron commander’s DFC and copies of  the  citations  awarding  the
five Air Medals.  Should the applicant provide additional  documentation  to
substantiate his claim, we would be willing to reconsider his petition.   We
noted the applicant’s offer to exchange the fifth oak leaf  cluster  to  the
Air Medal for the DFC.  However, we have seen no showing that  the  superior
officer, who had the authority to approve the DFC, abused his  discretionary
authority when he determined that the DFC should be  downgraded  to  an  Air
Medal.  We do not wish to deprive the applicant of an award to which  he  is
entitled; however, based on the evidence before us, we have no recourse  but
to conclude that his request for the DFC should be denied.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 12 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-1997-01417.

      Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 18 October 1997,
                with Exhibits.
      Exhibit F.  Requests for Reconsideration, through
                Congressional channels.
      Exhibit G.  Letter from a Member of Congress, dated
                17 January 2003, with attachments.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 20 May 2003.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 May 2003.
      Exhibit J.  Letter from a Member of Congress, dated
                26 June 2003.



                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair