RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03307
                                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: NO

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC)  for  heroic  actions  he
performed on 7 February 1945.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for the DFC in  1945;  however,  the  ground  maintenance
crew didn’t know his name, and  they  mistakenly  awarded  the  DFC  to  the
Flight Engineer instead of him.  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 applicant has provided a personal statement; a statement from the  pilot
of the aircraft; a copy of the AM Citation; a  copy  of  his  DD  Form  215,
Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active
Duty; and congressional  correspondence.   His  complete  submission  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s complete military records were  either  lost  or  destroyed.
The  following  information  is  extracted  from   partially   reconstructed
records.  The applicant entered active duty on  14 November  1943.   He  was
trained and served as an Aerial Gunner.  The applicant  served  an  overseas
tour in the European Theater of Operations from 7 September 1944  to  5  May
1945.  He was honorably discharged in the grade of staff sergeant on 6  July
1945.  the applicant was credited with 1 year, 8  months,  and  24  days  of
active duty service, of which 8 months and  23  days  was  foreign  service.
His Report of Separation reflects award of the  Air  Medal  with  three  oak
leaf clusters,  European-African-Middle  Eastern  Campaign  Medal  with  one
silver and one bronze star, and the Good Conduct Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR  recommends  disapproval.   DPPPR  states  that  the  applicant’s
initial request for the DFC was  denied  by  SAFPC  on  26 June  2001.   The
applicant submitted a request  for  reconsideration  in  2002,  and  it  was
denied on 31 October 2002.  The board judged that there was  no  distinctive
heroism, which allowed the achievement to measure up to  the  DFC  standards
of “extraordinary,” and elected to award  the  applicant  with  the  AM  for
heroism.  The  AM  elements  were  sent  to  the  applicant’s  congressional
representative for  presentation.   The  applicant  returned  the  elements,
stating that the AM was not the  appropriate  decoration  for  his  actions.
The applicant claims that on 7 February 1945, while on  a  bombing  mission,
his aircraft was severely damaged by enemy flak.  The  control  cables  were
severed, and the aircraft could not be  landed  safely  without  the  cables
controlling the flaps.  He devised a new cable out of safety wire, and  then
reinforced it with cable from the emergency rations flotation  device.   The
aircraft was safely landed at their home base in Italy.  Had he not  devised
a temporary  cable,  the  crew  might  have  had  to  bail  out  over  enemy
territory.  The grounds maintenance crew recommended him for  award  of  the
DFC  but,  not  knowing  his  name,  inadvertently  recommended  the  flight
Engineer, who was awarded the DFC for the applicant’s actions.

DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to individuals  who  distinguish  themselves
by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in flight.   The
AM is awarded  to  individuals  who  distinguish  themselves  by  heroic  or
meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial flight.

DPPPR states that if the Board decides to award the applicant  the  DFC  for
actions performed on 7 February 1945, the AM will need to  be  revoked.   If
the Board decides not to award the DFC, the AM awarded in 2002 needs  to  be
changed to the AM with fourth oak leaf cluster.  DPPPR states the  applicant
is entitled to the American Campaign Medal and World War II  Victory  Medal.
Any additional corrections will be held in abeyance until the AM versus  DFC
for 7 February 1945 issue is resolved.  The DPPPR 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  19
December 2003, for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of  the  available
records, we found no evidence that the applicant is eligible for  the  award
of the DFC.  We note the applicant’s assertion that  he  was  nominated  for
the DFC and that the  flight  engineer  aboard  his  aircraft  inadvertently
received the award instead.  We have reviewed the supporting statement  from
the aircraft’s pilot and note that he was not  the  approval  authority  for
the DFC.  According to the evidence presented, we  agree  with  the  opinion
from the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  that  the  applicant’s
achievement does not meet the requirements for the award of  a  DFC.   There
is no indication in his records that he was  recommended  for,  or  awarded,
the DFC.  We note that the Secretary of the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council,
instead, awarded the applicant the AM for his acts of  heroism  and  we  are
unpersuaded by the evidence presented that he was not  afforded  proper  and
fitting relief by  their  action.   The  personal  sacrifice  the  applicant
endured for his  country  is  noted  and  the  recommendation  to  deny  the
requested relief in no way diminishes  the  high  regard  we  have  for  his
service.  Nevertheless, in view of the above, we find no basis to  favorably
consider 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 Chair
            Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
            Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2003-03307
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 03.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 16 Dec 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.




                             BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                             Panel Chair