RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02227
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Purple Heart Medal (PHM) and the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 31 May 1944, he was wounded on his left ankle by enemy flak while
on a bombing mission over Mulhouse, France. He was treated at the
121st station hospital for about ten days. Apparently the records of
his hospitalization to care for this wound have been lost. He states
that at the time of his wounding he was concerned only with survival.
While he was flying combat missions over Korea in 1952, he began
seeking evidence to substantiate his claim, but to no avail.
On 24 December 1944, he was recommended for award of the DFC, by
Lieutenant (Lt) ----, that was confirmed by the squadron commanding
officer (CO). He is convinced that orders were cut for the award of
the DFC as his CO told him this upon his departure from the --st Bomb
Group for the USA. Upon arriving in the US he was stationed in New
Jersey, Fort Lewis, San Antonio, TX, and other locations before
eventually being discharged at Fort Lewis. He believes the order that
awarded him the DFC became lost trying to catch up with him. He has
only his word he was awarded the DFC.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of A.G.O.
Form No. 64, Physical Examination for Flying, an SF 89, Report of
Medical History, which mentions a wound to his leg, and two pages of
his logbook.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, served on active duty during World War II (WWII) from
25 February 1943 to 28 September 1945 that included a tour in Europe
from 21 April 1944 to 19 January 1945 as a member of the ---st Bomb
Sq. He was awarded the Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters, the
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, and the Good Conduct
Medal. He served for one year, nine months, and six days of which
nine months and twenty-eight days were spent in the air war over
Europe.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. Regarding the applicant’s request for
the PHM, DPPPR notes that applicant’s record does not substantiate his
claims of having been wounded by the enemy. His 4 May 1945 Physical
Examination for Flying has no mention of any wound or injury incurred
nor does his Report of Physical Examination of Enlisted Personnel
Prior to Discharge, Release from Active Duty, or Retirement. On 4
August 1987, a Conversation Record shows the applicant’s original
medical records for 1943-1945 was present in the VA folder during that
conversation and there was no treatment for wounds incurred in combat
found therein. The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in a
reply to the applicant’s congressional representative on 8 August
2003, finds the only medical entries regarding the applicant show he
was sick in quarters from 26 to 29 May 1944. Therefore, based on the
information provided by the applicant and the fact there is no record
he was ever treated or hospitalized for any injury or wound, DPPPR is
unable to verify his eligibility for award of the PHM.
The applicant has been found entitled to the American Campaign Medal
and World War II Victory Medal however and these have been added to
his Report of Separation.
Regarding applicant’s claim to the DFC, DPPPR states the applicant has
been informed since 1987 of the necessity of providing a
recommendation signed by a recommending official and endorsed by the
next higher official in his chain of command. To date, there is no
indication in his records such a recommendation was made and the
applicant has not provided any information showing a recommendation
ever was made. Therefore, DPPPR is unable to verify his eligibility
for award of the DFC.
DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
26 September 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After thorough review of the
applicant’s submission and medical records, we found that there was
insufficient evidence to support his contention that he was wounded on
his left ankle by enemy flak while on a bombing mission over Milhouse,
France. Additionally, there was no evidence provided by the applicant
to substantiate his claim of being recommended for the DFC;
consequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
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 BC-
2003-02227 in Executive Session on 28 October 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 May 03, w/atch's.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 15 Sep 03, w/atch's.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Sep 03.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-04079
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should receive the PH for a wound he received as a direct result of enemy action on 25 March 1945. He did not refer to any medical treatment he might have received or provide any documentation showing that he did received any medical treatment for leg injuries incurred on 25 March 1943. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
Had he not been reassigned he would have completed a total of 35 combat missions and met the requirement for award of a DFC (i.e., completion of 35 combat missions). After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the supporting documentation he provided, we are not persuaded that his record should be corrected to reflect completion of 28 combat missions or that he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). After a thorough review of his submission and the supporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02518
Due to flying deficiencies, he was relieved from further flying and entered bombardier school. He cannot show medical documentation because the Air Force has his medical records. We took notice of the applicant’s contention that he should be awarded the Purple Heart for injuries sustained while on bombing missions in Europe.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03363
DPPPR notes the applicant has applied for the DFC and PHM several times since 1997. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, however, after review of his submission and the evidence of what little record there is available, we are of the opinion that he met the requirement for award of the DFC (number of missions flown and award of six Air Medals) and feel as though he provided enough documentation to show he was recommended for the award of the DFC. FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02836
If one member of a crew receives the DFC all members should. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that in 1944 he and others were selected to be lead crew and would receive the DFC upon completion of 30 missions. He states that AFPC has erred in their recommendation and that he should be granted the medal as well as the recognition of a certificate.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04058
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPW was able to document applicant’s claim of being a POW and consequently recommended his discharge document reflect that he was a POW and he be considered for award of the Purple Heart Medal. Therefore, the majority of the Board recommends the records be corrected as indicated below. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 03723
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Purple Heart medal. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, no documentation was found to verify award of the Purple Heart Medal. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02730
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be awarded the PH because he was hit by shrapnel from enemy fire and should be awarded the DFC because he completed over 25 combat missions. The applicant also states that during the period in question, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby the DFC was awarded upon the completion of 25 combat missions. ...