RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02502
INDEX CODE: 107.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Air Medal (AM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was a flight engineer for the 74th Bombardment Squadron (BS) and
flew over 200 hours of combat patrol. The AM was made to all
crewmembers that had flown at least 200 hours of combat patrol time.
The award was awarded in June 1943 to the 74th BS.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty in the Army Air Corps from 4
August 1939 through 2 September 1945 and received an honorable
discharge.
Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by the 1973 fire
at the National Personnel Records Center; therefore, only limited
information is available for review.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPR states the applicant was requested to provide official
documentation in support of his request. The applicant submitted a
copy of his Report of Separation and a history of the 74th Bombardment
Squadron. The applicant did not provide any other official
documentation regarding his military service. The applicant was
informed on 21 November 2002 that the documentation he submitted was
not sufficient to substantiate his request. The applicant was also
informed that a written recommendation would have been submitted,
recommending him for the AM. He did not respond. The applicant’s
Report of Separation shows the applicant was an Airplane Maintenance
Technician and assigned to the 52nd BS. Without verification that the
applicant was a flight engineer, assigned to the 74th BS and flew over
200 hours of combat patrol, and a if a written recommendation had been
submitted to award him the AM, we cannot verify his eligibility for
award.
DPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 10 January 2003, for review and response. 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 of 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
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. The applicant requests he be awarded the AM
because he was member of the 74th Bombardment Squadron serving as a
flight engineer and flew over 200 hours of combat patrol.
Unfortunately, the applicant’s personnel records were apparently
destroyed in the 1973 fire at the NPRC. Therefore, AFPC requested the
applicant provide a copy of his Report of Separation and any other
documents to substantiate his request for award of the AM. The
applicant submitted a copy of his Report of Separation and a history
of the 74th Bombardment Squadron and other units assigned in the
Panama Canal Zone. The Report of Separation the applicant provided
indicates that he arrived in the Canal Zone on 18 September 1939 and
departed on 22 February 1943. The Report of Separation also indicates
the applicant received a Good Conduct Medal in 1943 while assigned to
the HQ 52nd Bomb Squadron, presumably for his service while assigned
in the Canal Zone. The Report of Separation also indicates the
applicant served as an aircraft maintenance technician. The history
of the 74th Bombardment Squadron indicating that the AM was awarded to
all crewmembers who had flown at least 200 hours of combat patrol time
is duly noted. However, the applicant has not provided persuasive
evidence that he was a crewmember with the 74th Bombardment Squadron
who flew at least 200 hours of combat patrol time. Further, he
provides no documentation reflecting a written recommendation for the
AM. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application. We wish to point out that our decision in no way should
be construed as a diminishment of the applicant’s significant
contributions during World War II. His achievements and personal
sacrifice in defending his country in a time of peril are
unquestionable.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
02502 in Executive Session on 11 February 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 30 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02480
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he served during World War II from 24 March 1942 through 17 January 1946. He further states he is requesting an OLC not an additional medal (Exhibit E). After thoroughly reviewing the available personnel records, we found no evidence to verify he...
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03898
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial, noting there are no special order, recommendation, proposed citation, or any other evidence provided by the applicant or located within his limited official military personnel file to support that he was submitted for the AM. All military decorations require a recommendation from a recommending official within the member’s chain of command at the time of the act or...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03024
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of a 452nd Bombardment Squadron letter, dated 24 May 1945, indicating he completed 11 flight lead missions as a pilot. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for an additional AM be denied, and states, in part, that applicant’s records did not contain a copy of a recommendation letter or special order awarding him an AM, 6 OLC for lead combat...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03117
They state, in part, that based upon the criteria used in 1943 there is no basis for any award. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the Congressman McIntyres office, on behalf of the applicant, via electronic mail (email) on 12 Aug 13 for review and comment within 30 days. Although official documents do reference the co-pilot being wounded, there...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00777
While General Hap Arnold may have well revised the policy, 8th Air Force, under General Dolittle, awarded an AM to every Flight Crew or Ground Pounder who flew five combat missions and an Oak Leaf Cluster for each additional five combat missions. We note the applicants award of the EAMCM w/6 BSS is already reflected on his DD Form 214; therefore, that portion of his request does not require a correction to his record. _________________________________________________________________ THE...
He also completed three missions as a B-17F navigator. During World War II, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 30 combat flight missions and an AM was awarded upon the completion of five missions. In 1944, the 8th Air Force required completion of 30 combat flight missions; however, the applicant did not complete 30 missions.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00994
After a complete review of all three official military records they were able to confirm the two crewmembers received the DFC for a number of bombardment missions flown over Europe in June 1944, and the applicant receiving the Air Medal w/3 OLC in June 1944. He requested the DFC through his congressman’s office in June 1996 and was informed a written recommendation was required for award of the DFC. The Board also notes, the applicant received the Air Medal w/3 OLC during the time both...
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 | 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...