Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00833
Original file (BC-2004-00833.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00833

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for missions  flown
during World War II.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He cannot prove the things he had done or what happened to him  unless
he has a complete service record.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal letter  and
a copy of his discharge.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Apparently, the applicant’s records at the National Personnel  Records
Center in St. Louis were destroyed by the 1973  fire.   The  available
information provided by the applicant included an Honorable  Discharge
Certificate, stating he was discharged in the grade of staff  sergeant
on 4 November 1945.  His Report of Separation reflects  the  award  of
the American Theater Ribbon, European-African-Middle Eastern  Campaign
Medal with 3 Bronze Service Star, Good Conduct Medal,  the  Air  Medal
with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters and the Victory Medal World War II.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial and states that they are unable to  find
evidence of a recommendation for, or award of the DFC.

AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 1 June 2001, for review and response.  As of  this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt  their  rationale  as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an  injustice.   We
believe it should  be  pointed  out  that  the  applicant’s  decorated
service and  sacrifice  for  his  country  have  not  gone  unnoticed.
Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been presented which  has  shown
to our satisfaction that the applicant met  the  established  criteria
for award of the DFC.  In view of the above  and  in  the  absence  of
sufficient 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-
2004-00833 in Executive Session on 27 July 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
            Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
            Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 28 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 04.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00413

    Original file (BC-2005-00413.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should receive the DFC and SS with 9 battle stars based on his successful completion of 50 combat missions and since he was shot down 3 times. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of applicant’s request for the DFC and states, in part, that in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03359

    Original file (BC-2005-03359.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03359 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 MAY 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) Medal and the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) which were listed on the AFRS4 Fm#35-24, dated 4 Jul 45. We took notice of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00352

    Original file (BC-2004-00352.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Purple Heart is awarded for wounds received as a direct result of enemy actions. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that his injuries were incurred as a direct result of enemy fire. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00010

    Original file (BC-2005-00010.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although we find the applicant's actions which led to award of the Airman's Medal and two DFCs for his acts of heroism to be truly commendable, we find no evidence of either an error or an injustice in this case. In this regard, we note that the SAFPC considered the aforementioned decorations for award of an additional 10 percent in retired pay and found that, while heroic, his actions did not measure up to the standard required for an "extraordinary" determination. Novel, Member The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02772

    Original file (BC-2004-02772.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02772 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 MAR 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive the additional 10% in retired pay authorized for Airman's Medal (AM) recipients. On 10 Dec 04, The Personnel Council determined that extraordinary heroism, within the meaning of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00386

    Original file (BC-2004-00386.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2004-00787

    Original file (bc-2004-00787.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2004-00916

    Original file (BC-2004-00916.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2004 | bc-2004-02294

    Original file (bc-2004-02294.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03794

    Original file (BC-2004-03794.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...