ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00153
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 1 October 1998, the Board considered applicant’s request that he be
awarded the Air Medal, Seventh Oak Leaf Cluster (AM, 7 OLC). The Board was
not persuaded that the applicant should have been automatically awarded the
AM, 7 OLC, because he shot down a German aircraft (i.e., ME-109) during
World War II. The Board found insufficient evidence of a probable error or
injustice to warrant awarding the AM, 7 OLC, and denied the applicant’s
request. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant’s appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision of the Board,
see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.
In a letter, dated 18 March 2001, the applicant provided additional
documentation, to include a newspaper article regarding retroactive award
of the DFC to a World War II veteran, and requested reconsideration of his
application. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit F.
The Distinguished Flying Cross DFC) was established by Congress on 2 July
1926 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while
participating in aerial flight. The performance of the act of heroism must
be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.
During World War II, the 14th Air Force had an established policy whereby a
DFC was awarded upon the completion of either 50 operational missions, 200
combat hours, or 300 transport and cargo missions.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied. AFPC/DPPPR states, in
part, that applicant’s records were destroyed by fire in 1973, at the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). Without the applicant’s records,
they are unable to verify his eligibility for the DFC. They can only
verify his awards and decorations according to his Report of Separation.
The applicant has not provided any documentation to substantiate his claim
for the DFC.
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 29 June and 17 September 2001 for review and response within 30 days.
However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by the
applicant, we are still not persuaded that he has been the victim of an
error or injustice. The newspaper article submitted by the applicant is
noted; however, it does not substantiate that he was ever recommended for
the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The office of primary responsibility
has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their
opinion and recommendation. We, therefore, adopt the rationale expressed
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. Hence, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the additional 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 8 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 19 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Mar 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 May 01.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 19 Jun 01.
Exhibit I. Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun & 17 Sep 01.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
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.
He be promoted to the grade of captain in 1945 upon separation from active duty or in 1950 after serving an additional five years in the Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded a DFC since he and the pilot were recommended at the same time and for the same mission and the pilot received his DFC; or in the alternative, he should be awarded the DFC based on the completion of 35 combat missions. A complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02299
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The War Department General Order #12 dated 11 February 1944, awarded the Air Medal (AM) to each of the pilots of the first flight of the P- 38’s, which flew across the North Atlantic from the United States to the United Kingdom, between 5-16 September 1942, for subsequent combat application. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00357 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00420
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In view of his completion of a total of 37 combat missions and based on the Eighth Air Force established policy of awarding an AM upon the completion of every five heavy bomber missions and awarding a DFC upon the completion of 35 combat missions, he should be awarded the DFC and an additional AM. In view of the above, and since the applicant never received a DFC for his completion of a combat...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2004-02294
During the period in question, he was told by a major at base headquarters that upon returning stateside, he would receive the DFC for his completion of a tour of 32 combat missions and an oak leaf cluster to the DFC for his completion of 14 lead missions. Under the revised policy, the DFC could be awarded for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. In view of this statement, and given the total number of missions the applicant...
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-2005-01409
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. Any Air Force member or veteran who was awarded the DFC for heroism on or after 18 September 1947 is now authorized to wear the “V” Device on the DFC. The Distinguished Flying Cross is considered a valorous award; therefore, the “V” device is not required and is considered superfluous.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01651
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for issuance of the PH, DFC and BSM to her late husband be denied, and states, in part, that no official documentation has been provided to show the member was recommended for, or awarded the DFC, BSM, and PH. RITA S. LOONEY Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXX,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00386
AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that although the applicant’s records indicate that he completed a total of 35 combat missions and he has submitted a DFC recommendation signed by his former commander, in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM or DFC based solely on the number of combat missions completed, but rather for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. Applicant’s records do not indicate he was...