RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03110
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Army Air Force medal in recognition  of  his  flying
ability on 12 Aug 44.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 12 Aug 44, the allies were starting the invasion of Southern France
and he was cleared for combat, participating in  the  group’s  bombing
mission.  A devastating event took place just as the plane lifted  off
the runway, which was an exception and rare.  The  door  to  the  life
raft fell to the runway, releasing the raft.  The raft wrapped  around
the controls, making it impossible to fly.  He and  the  co-pilot  had
their feet upon the instrument panel to maintain  tree  top  altitude.
The plane vibrated and threatened to fall apart.  The flight  was  one
of great concern, anxiety, and life-threatening conditions that  ended
successfully because of their efforts.

There were discrepancies between  the  group  report,  the  engineer’s
report, and the crew regarding how long they were airborne  and  their
altitude.  The reports were completed without  any  conversation  with
the crew.  Although he and the crew expected  an  investigation,  none
was ever conducted.

As for a possible award for the incident, he  finds  it  difficult  to
suggest one.  He earned  the  Distinguished  Flying  Cross  (DFC)  for
taking the lead of a flight while  on  a  mission.   The  mission  was
frightening, with heavy accurate flax and plenty  of  fighters.   Most
medals were instituted after World  War  II  and  perhaps  are  not  a
possible award for a World War II incident.  He believes the  Airman’s
Medal may be applicable.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided personal  statements,
extracts from his military  personnel  records,  and  other  documents
associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available military  personnel  records  indicate  that  the  applicant
enlisted in the Army of the United States (AUS) as a  private  in  Sep
42.  On 1 Oct 43, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, AUS
(Air Corps), with a military occupational specialty  (MOS)  of  pilot.
He served overseas in the Mediterranean  Theater  from  3  May  44  to
29 Nov 44.

A United States Army Air Forces Report of Aircraft Accident  indicates
that on 12 Aug 44, the applicant was the pilot  of  an  aircraft  that
effected a normal  takeoff.   Shortly  after  becoming  airborne,  the
aircraft  allegedly  began  to  vibrate  and   the   controls   became
ineffective.  Sufficient altitude was attained in a straight path  off
the runway, wherein the  applicant  (pilot)  elected  to  abandon  the
airplane.  The aircraft immediately crashed to the earth and exploded.
 The applicant received minor injuries, along with two  other  members
of the crew.

Applicant was relieved from active duty on 24 Sep 45 in the  grade  of
first lieutenant.  His  separation  document  indicates  that  he  was
awarded the DFC, the Air  Medal,  with  two  Oak  Leaf  Clusters,  the
Presidential Unit Citation, and the European  African  Middle  Eastern
Theater Campaign Ribbon.

On 6 Jul 51, he was called from inactive duty and entered on  extended
active duty in the grade of first lieutenant as  an  amphibian  pilot.
He was released from active duty on 18 Nov 52.

On 29  Sep  55,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  all
appointments in the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial stating that there was no indication  in
the applicant’s records he was recommended for award of any decoration
for the incident that occurred on 12 Aug 44.  The  applicant  has  not
provided any documentation to substantiate any of his claims that  the
reports  he  provided  were  completed  without  his  knowledge/input.
Neither the applicant nor the reports explain why the  life  raft  was
not secured before takeoff,  allowing  the  life  raft  to  cause  the
accident that destroyed the aircraft.

AFPC/DPPPR  noted  that  the  applicant  did  not  provide  a  written
recommendation from his supervisor, commander, or person  with  first-
hand knowledge of the incident, and he cannot recommend himself for  a
decoration.

According to AFPC/DPPPR, there was no indication  in  the  applicant’s
records that he was recommended for any additional decorations.   They
noted that he was awarded the DFC and the Air Medal, with two Oak Leaf
Clusters, in recognition of his aerial achievements.  They also  noted
the applicant’s statement that it appears the Airman’s Medal would  be
applicable as  for  as  recognition  for  the  incident  in  question.
However, the Airman’s Medal was not established until 1960, and it  is
only awarded for “conditions other than those of actual conflict  with
an armed enemy.”  Therefore, this decoration could not be  considered.
Since he has not provided any official  documentation  to  refute  the
official reports of the accident, AFPC/DPPPR stated  that  they  could
not verify his eligibility for award of any decoration for the 12  Aug
44 incident.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated  that  he  and  the  co-pilot
struggled to keep a difficult to fly aircraft in the air  long  enough
to save the entire crew for further combat duty.  In his opinion, that
was an extraordinary, heroic, and  meritorious,  accomplishment  under
terrible circumstances.  He hopes the Board feels  the  same  way  and
recognizes the accomplishment with some form of a award.

Applicant’s complete response 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  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 would  lead
us to believe that his superiors intended to or ever  recommended  him
for award of a decoration for the incident that occurred on 12 Aug  44
in recognition of his flying ability.  Furthermore, other than his own
assertions, the applicant has  not  provided  any  evidence  that  the
official account of the incident was an inaccurate depiction.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
03110 in Executive Session on 14 Jan 03, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
      Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 25 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Nov 02.





                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair