Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02502
Original file (BC-2002-02502.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02480

    Original file (BC-2005-02480.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-02508.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2008-03898.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2005-03024.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2012-03117.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 McIntyre’s 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

    Original file (BC 2009 00777.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100023

    Original file (0100023.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-00994.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-02073.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2003-02015.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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...