RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02015
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished  Flying
Cross (DFC) for actions on a bombing mission on 10 October 1944.

By amendment, the applicant is requesting that he  be  awarded  the  “Fourth
Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air  Medal”  for  participation  in  aerial  flights
during the period 23 December 1944 through 3 April 1945.  In  addition,  his
Enlisted Record and Report of Separation (WD AGO Form  53-55)  be  corrected
by adding  “China,  Formosa  and  Western  Pacific  Campaigns”  to  Item  32
(Battles and Campaigns).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  commanding  officer  of  the  65th  Bombardment   Squadron   made   the
recommendation for the DFC for their history-making mission  of  a  daylight
raid on the Japanese oil refinery base at Balikpapan, Borneo.

In response to HQ AFPC/DPPPRA’s 3 July 2003 letter, he provides  a  personal
statement,  with  documentation  to  substantiate  his  appeal.     He   was
recommended for the DFC by his commander/pilot, concurred  by  his  squadron
and group commander and advised that the  request  would  be  honored.   His
former commander/pilot further points out that he was not credited with  the
China,  Formosa  and  Western   Pacific   Campaigns.    Also,   his   former
commander/pilot is shown receiving the Fourth Cluster to the Air  Medal  for
participating in flights March-April  1945.   The  record  of  his  last  17
missions, December 23, 1944 through April 3, 1945, appears as if it did  not
exist.

In support of his request, applicant submits a  statement  from  the  former
squadron  flight  surgeon,  electronic  mail  from   the   former   aircraft
commander/pilot, dated 28 February 2002, a personal letter,  dated  15  July
2003, copies of his  separation  documents,  a  statement  from  the  former
aircraft commander/pilot, dated 12 April 2001, a personal letter,  dated  26
February 2001, copies of  his  flight  log,  mission  diary  and  additional
documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his  contentions.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed in the  1973  fire
at the National Personnel Records Center.

The following information was extracted from  applicant’s  submission.   His
Enlisted Record and  Report  of  Separation,  WD  AGO  Form  53-55,  reveals
9 January 1943 as the date of entry into active service and that  he  served
with the 65th Bombardment Squadron.  He was credited with an  overseas  tour
in Australia during the period 16 May 1944 to 6 May 1945.  He  was  credited
with  the  following  battles   and   campaigns:    New   Guinea;   Bismarck
Archipelago; North Solomons Campaigns, Southern Philippines and Luzon.   The
applicant was awarded the Purple Heart Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Air  Medal
with three oak leaf  clusters,  Asiatic-Pacific  Campaign  Medal  with  five
bronze service stars, Philippine Liberation Medal with  two  bronze  service
stars,  American  Campaign  Medal  and  the  World  War  II  Victory  Medal.
Applicant’s Report of Separation reveals he was wounded in action in  Borneo
on 10 October 1944.  On 20 May 1945, the applicant was honorably  discharged
from the Army Air Corps in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6)  under  the
provisions of AR 615-365 and RR 1-1 (Demobilization).  He  had  completed  a
total of 1 year, 4 months and 19 days of continental service and  11  months
and 23 days of foreign service.

The applicant’s Army Separation  Qualification  Record,  WD  AGO  Form  100,
reveals that he participated in 43 combat and 34 combat ferry  missions  and
that he was recommended for the DFC and second oak leaf cluster for the  Air
Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 believes that all members of the
applicant’s crew were recommended for award of the DFC  for  the  10 October
1944 mission, but all decorations were downgraded to  the  Air  Medal  (AM).
The applicant’s WD Form 111 refers to recommendations submitted for the  DFC
and Air Medal with second oak leaf cluster; the applicant  received  the  AM
with three oak leaf clusters.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude  that
his DFC, like his commander’s, was downgraded to the AM.  DPPPR states  that
the applicant is the third surviving crew member to ask  for  award  of  the
DFC for the 10 October  1944  mission;  both  of  the  other  crew  members’
requests were denied by the AFBCMR.  The  applicant’s  aircraft  commander’s
request for award of the DFC was denied on 29 May 02.  Since  the  applicant
has apparently already received an AM for the 10 October  1944  mission,  he
is ineligible for award of the DFC for the same mission.   According  to  AF
Pamphlet 900-2, the applicant’s unit was only  credited  with  participation
in the Antisubmarine campaign; therefore, he is actually  entitled  to  only
one bronze service star to the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign  Medal  rather  than
the five bronze service stars reflected on the Report  of  Separation.   The
HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He stated that the advisory writer’s  facts  were  inaccurate  and  did  not
respond to all of his requests.  He served on an overseas  tour  during  the
period of May 1944 to May 1945 with the Fifth Army  Air  Force  (AAF),  43rd
Bomb Group, 65th Bomb Squadron and has listed the specific  locations.   The
document provided by his aircraft commander  to  the  Director  of  Veterans
Service Agency was a DFC recommendation, which specifically recommended  him
for the award.  The flight surgeon’s letter verified his recommendation  for
the DFC and was approved by the squadron commander.  The recommendation  was
forwarded to Group headquarters and unfortunately lost.  He  is  asking  for
additional campaign credit for his Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal  based  on
the following:  He participated in five bombing missions to Formosa and,  on
one of these missions, his 41st (26 March 1945),  their  crew  was  credited
with the sinking of a large enemy vessel.  He participated on three  bombing
missions to China and on two of these missions, his 42nd (31 March  1945  to
Yulin, China) and 43rd (3 April 1945 to Hong Kong, China),  their  crew  was
credited with the sinking of two  large  enemy  vessels.   He  has  provided
documentation showing that other crewmembers received this credit.

In addition, the advisory writer failed to address his request for award  of
the Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal.  The basis for his request  is
that he did not receive any recognition for his participation from  missions
27 through 43 (23 December 1944 through 3 April  1945).   The  rest  of  his
crew received the Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the AM for this time frame  and
he has provided verifying documents.

The statement that his unit was only  credited  with  participation  in  the
Antisubmarine campaign in the Asiatic Pacific  Campaign  is  the  height  of
incompetence and an insult  to  all  the  brave  men  who  served  in  their
victory.  He flew 43  bombing  missions,  plus  numerous  supply  and  troop
movements  flights,  and  never  once  an  antisubmarine  mission.   He  was
separated from the service two months earlier than the rest of his crew  due
to being the first member to complete the magic score.

In support of his request,  the  applicant  submits  a  statement  from  his
aircraft  commander/pilot.   A  complete  copy  of   this   response,   with
attachment, is at Exhibit D.


On 18 November 2003, the applicant was provided redacted copies  of  similar
cases considered by the AFBCMR (Exhibit E).  Subsequent  to  his  review  of
the referenced cases, the applicant believes the  aircraft  pilot,  co-pilot
and all crewmembers were advised at the squadron debriefing that they  would
all receive the DFC for their extraordinary  achievements  in  the  historic
Balikpapan Raid, which was verified by the  flight  surgeon’s  8 March  2001
letter he provided.  A complete copy of this response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant  to  the  Board’s  request,  the  following  advisory  opinion  was
provided.

HQ AFPC/DPPPR states that the applicant received the Air Medal,  with  third
oak leaf cluster, for his actions on 10 October  1944.   The  recommendation
was processed and received by the final approval authority,  who  downgraded
the DFC to the Air Medal, as were  those  of  his  other  crewmembers.   The
applicant believes that since he  flew  combat  missions  during  designated
campaign periods, he should have additional  bronze  service  stars  to  his
Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal.  The applicant’s unit, the 65th  Bombardment
Squadron, did  not  receive  credit  for  participation  in  more  than  one
campaign.  DPPPR is unable to verify any additional  campaign  credit.   The
majority of the official documents the applicant provided pertained  to  his
aircraft  commander,  not   to   himself.    Applicant’s   Army   Separation
Qualification record (WD AFO Form 100) does state that  he  participated  in
43 combat and 34 combat ferry missions.  As of 20 May 1945, the date he  was
demobilized, the applicant had received the Air  Medal  with  one  oak  leaf
cluster and the Purple Heart Medal.  He has been  recommended  for  the  DFC
and second oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal.  The  recommendation  for  the
second oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal was approved, and then was  awarded
the third oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal  in  lieu  of  the  DFC.   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 December 1944 to 3 April 1945.  The HQ  AFPC/DPPPR
evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He stated that his  pilot  and  co-pilot  and  other  gunners  on  his  crew
received credit for the Formosa and China campaigns.  His log shows that  he
flew in these campaigns and received  a  letter  of  confirmation  from  his
pilot.  With regard to the fourth cluster to  the  Air  Medal,  he  did  not
receive any credit for his last 17 missions,  December  1944  through  April
1945.  His crewmembers  all  received  the  fourth  cluster  for  this  time
period.  His log confirms he flew the missions.  In addition,  a  confirming
letter from his pilot and a copy of his separation papers shows he  received
the fourth cluster to the Air Medal and campaign stars for the  Formosa  and
China campaigns.  As to the DFC recommendation, it appears  his  denial  was
based on his other crewmembers being denied.  They  received  a  cluster  to
the Air Medal for this historic mission.  This was a blanket decoration  due
to the significance of the historic raid.  They were  each  recommended  for
the DFC for their individual extraordinary achievements during this  flight.
 Each individual should be judged and awarded on their merits.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a  personal  statement  and
additional history about the 43rd Bomb Group, 5th AAF.  A complete  copy  of
this response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice warranting partial relief.  After  reviewing
applicant’s submission, to include the aircraft commander’s  statements  and
supporting documents, we are  persuaded  that,  due  to  an  oversight,  the
applicant did not receive combat mission credit for the Formosa,  China  and
Western  Pacific  Campaigns.   We,  therefore,   believe   the   applicant’s
separation document should reflect the cited campaigns.  With regard to  the
Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal, we note the  applicant’s  detailed
mission log reflects his participation in aerial flights during  the  period
23 December 1944 through 3 April 1945.  In addition, it was noted  that  the
aircraft commander was awarded an oak leaf cluster  to  the  Air  Medal  for
participating in sustained operational  flight  missions  during  a  similar
time frame.  Apparently, the award of the Air Medal was  determined  by  the
number of combat missions.  In support of applicant’s  claim,  we  note  the
statement from the former aircraft commander confirms  the  combat  missions
the applicant flew with  his  crew.   Even  though  the  applicant  has  not
substantiated that he was ever recommended for award of the Fourth Oak  Leaf
Cluster to the Air Medal, after a thorough review of his submission, we  are
persuaded that the applicant’s request should be approved based on the  type
and number of combat missions he flew  during  the  war.   In  view  of  the
foregoing and in order to offset any possibility of  an  injustice,  we  are
convinced that he was deserving  of  the  requested  award.   Therefore,  we
recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

4  Insufficient relevant evidence has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error  or  injustice  concerning  award  of  the  Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC).  After a thorough review of the evidence of  record  and
applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that he  should  be  awarded  the
DFC for the 10 October 1944 incident.  Although the  applicant,  along  with
his crew, was recommended for the DFC for the 10 October 1944  mission,  the
decorations were apparently downgraded to the Air Medal.  There  is  nothing
in the evidence provided which would cause us to believe this action by  the
approving authorities was erroneous, unjust, or contrary  to  the  governing
regulations and policies in effect at that  time.   The  applicant’s  highly
commendable actions during the course of his career have not gone  unnoticed
by this  Board.   However,  since  the  applicant  was  recognized  for  his
meritorious  achievement  by  the  officials  charged   with   making   this
determination when he was awarded the Air  Medal  and  he  has  provided  no
evidence not available at the time the Air Medal was approved,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend favorable action on  applicant’s  request  for
award of the DFC.

5  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.  In addition to the Air Medals previously  awarded,  based  on  his
meritorious achievement while participating in sustained operational  flight
missions in the Southwest Pacific Area, he was also awarded the  Fourth  Oak
Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal.

      b.  The WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report  of  Separation,
issued on 20  May  1945,  be  amended  to  reflect  Block  32  (Battles  and
Campaigns) credit for  participation  in  the  China,  Formosa  and  Western
Pacific Campaigns.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 25 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
              Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2003-02015.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 02, received 12 Jun 03,
                   w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 8 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter from Applicant, dated 25 Aug 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Nov 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 26 Nov 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 Jan 04.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jan 04.
   Exhibit I.  Letter from Applicant, dated 12 Feb 04, w/atchs.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-02015




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.  In addition to the Air Medals previously awarded, based on his
meritorious achievement while participating in sustained operational flight
missions in the Southwest Pacific Area, he was also awarded the Fourth Oak
Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal.

      b.  The WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation,
issued on 20 May 1945, be, and hereby is, amended to reflect Block 32
(Battles and Campaigns) credit for participation in the China, Formosa and
Western Pacific Campaigns.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director

                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency