RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01259
INDEX CODE: 107.00; 131.09;
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
An Oak Leaf Cluster (OLC) be added to his Air Medal (AM) or he be awarded
the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), and his rank at separation be changed
to Captain.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Because of the mission he flew with another military member, he should have
received the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross or he should be
awarded another Oak Leaf Cluster to his Air Medal. He was also told that
officers who separated after him were promoted to the next grade.
In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his separation
document, a Certificate of Service, copies of Award Orders and copies of
correspondence concerning the requested award. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by fire in the
National Personnel Records Center in 1973. The following information was
extracted from documents provided by the applicant.
Applicant entered active duty as a commissioned officer in the Army of the
United States, Officers’ Reserve Corps, Air Corps, on 16 February 1943. He
performed duties as a pilot in the European Theater of Operations (ETO)
during the period 15 August 1943 and 13 May 1945. He received the
following awards: Air Medal (AM) with two Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs), the
Distinguished Unit Badge, and the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater
Ribbon with seven Bronze Service Stars. He participated in the Normandy,
Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Rome-Arno, Northern France, Rhineland and Ardennes
battles and campaigns. The applicant was separated in the grade of first
lieutenant by reason of demobilization on 14 September 1945. He was
credited with nine months and six days of continental service and 1 year, 9
months and 22 days of foreign service.
In letters to the applicant dated 13 June 2003 and 22 July 2003,
respectively, HQ AFPC/DPPRA provided the applicant with detailed
information and instructions concerning his request for the DFC. These
letters are included with the applicant’s submission in Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion to
captain. DPPP states that terminal leave promotions did not come into
effect until 19 October 1945, after the applicant had been relieved from
active duty. DPPP’s recommendation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8
January 2004 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received.
________________________________________________________________
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. Evidence has not been provided which
would lead us to believe that the applicant was entitled to a promotion to
the grade of captain prior to his release from active duty or the award of
a DFC or an OLC to the AM for his participation in the Normandy invasion of
1944. The applicant was released from active duty prior to the time
terminal leave promotions were authorized. Furthermore, there is no
indication that he met the criteria for such a promotion had terminal leave
promotions been authorized when he was released from active duty. As to
the applicant’s request for an award based on his participation in a
mission, while the applicant asserts he was part of the mission for which
First Lieutenant Q--- was awarded the DFC, we note the applicant’s name
does not appear on the orders. There is no indication that the provisions
of G.O. Number 179 (the order provided by the applicant) applied to the
listing of awards presented on 26 August 1944. Finally, the evidence
provided does not substantiate that he participated in the mission for
which the awards were given, and, that he was recommended for an award and
the recommendation was lost or improperly denied. 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 this application in Executive
Session on 12 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chairman
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 April 2001.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Dec 2003.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jan 2004.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01347
On 8 December 1945, he was relieved from active duty to accept appointment as a first lieutenant, Officers’ Reserve Corps, Army of the United States. DPPPR states that there is no evidence in the decedent’s records of a recommendation for, or award of, the DFC. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the FORMER MEMBER be corrected to show that he was awarded...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03307
The Air Medal (AM) that was awarded to him on 4 November 2002 by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) is not the appropriate decoration for his actions. The control cables were severed, and the aircraft could not be landed safely without the cables controlling the flaps. DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in flight.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03794
In BC-2004-02294, the AFBCMR awarded a DFC to an applicant who had also completed more than the required ten missions as a lead navigator and an additional oak leaf cluster for completion of a tour of 32 combat missions. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01247
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01247 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXX (DECEASED) COUNSEL: DR ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 OCT 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and awarded the Air Medal (AM) with five Oak Leaf Clusters...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01548
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01548 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 November 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two oak leaf clusters to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and three additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). In view of the above,...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-00510
He was never awarded an additional AM for his 26th through 30th combat missions In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the former 67th Deputy Squadron Navigator recommending him for award of the DFC and an additional oak leaf cluster to the AM, and a list of his combat missions. The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July 1926 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. ...
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. ...
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...