RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 04-00478
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His actions on 23 June 1944 warrant award of the DFC.
In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of the award
recommendation package for the DFC. Applicant’s complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 4 February
1943 and entered active duty on 11 February 1943, was assigned to duty in
the Air Corps, and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff
sergeant. He performed duties as an Armorer Gunner on 50 bombing missions
over enemy territory. He was honorably discharged on 15 October 1945 by
reason of demobilization, having served 2 years, 2 months and 1 day of
total active military service, of which 6 months and 4 days was foreign
service. His discharge document shows he had participated in the Air
Offensive-Europe, Rome-Arno, Northern and Southern France and the Air
Combat-Balkans campaigns. He was awarded the European-African-Middle
Eastern Service Medal with 5 bronze stars, Air Medal with 3 Oak Leaf
Clusters (OLCs), Distinguished Unit Badge and Overseas Bar with 1 OLC.
Applicant continued to serve in the Air Force Reserve in an active and
inactive status until his transfer to the Honorary Retired Reserve Section
in the grade of captain effective 1 April 1963.
Based on the DFC award justification document provided by the applicant and
endorsed by Maj Gen (Ret) K---, on 23 June 1944 while on a mission to the
Giurgiu oil storage facility near Romania, the B-24 aircraft lost rudder
control, the applicant and another fellow crew member who were aboard the
aircraft repaired the rudder cable which allowed the aircraft to land
safely and saved the lives of the ten men aboard.
On 4 November 2002, the applicant was awarded the Air Medal 4th OLC for
heroism while participating in aerial flight on 23 June 1944.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied. 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. In 2003, SAFPC
reconsidered the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and determined
that the actions, on their own merits, had no distinctive heroism which
allowed the achievement to measure up to the standards of “extraordinary”
for award of the DFC. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant believes that his actions fulfill the definition of
“extraordinary” since B-24’s did not come with in-flight repair kits.
Applicant’s letter, with supportive statements is at Exhibit D.
By letter dated 9 April 2004, the applicant requested that his application
be temporarily withdrawn. On 22 May 2004, the case was reopened as
requested by the applicant (See Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant’s aerial heroism is noted
and our decision in no way lessens the value of his contributions while in
the service. We note that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council
(SAFPC), the approval authority, on two occasions considered and
disapproved his request for the Distinguished Flying Cross. They did,
however, recognize the applicant’s aerial heroism of 23 June 1944 by
awarding him the Air Medal, fourth oak leaf cluster. The applicant has
provided no evidence that was unavailable to SAFPC at the time they
considered his case and we are unpersuaded by the evidence presented that
that his actions met the criteria for award of the DFC. We therefore agree
with the assessment of the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an
error or an injustice. 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 Docket Number 01-02836 in
Executive Session on 23 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 04-00478 was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 19 Mar 04.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Apr and 22 May 04.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
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 | CY2004 | bc-2004-00787
Under the revised policy, the DFC could be awarded for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for applicant states, among other things, that the requested relief should be favorably considered based on the recommendation of the applicant’s former commanding officer and in view of the established...
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...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his WD AGO Form 53-55 and a Letter of Recommendation, dated 29 May 1944, indicating that he completed a total of 25 combat missions and was awarded the DFC and AM, 3 OLC. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that at the time he completed a total of 25 combat missions a member would be awarded a DFC and upon completion of every five combat...
The pilot of the 1 December 1971 mission recommends the applicant be awarded the DFC, 1 OLC, and states that due to the applicant’s quick and accurate interpretation of the Cambodian Ground Commander’s requests during the mission, they were able to place seven separate sets of fighters in and around Kampong Thma as close as 100 meters of the friendly forces, preventing the overrun of the city and saving the lives of many friendly Cambodian troops. Applicant’s complete submission, with...
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 | 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-2004-00916
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00916 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and Fifth and Sixth Oak Leaf Clusters to the Air Medal (AM, 5 & 6 OLCs). In 2001, the AFBCMR awarded a DFC and additional AMs to an applicant who had...
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 | 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...