RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01326
            INDEX CODE 107.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for action in World
War II (WWII).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On his 14th bomb mission over Germany,  some  of  the  bombs  did  not
release.  He walked over the open bomb doors onto  a  catwalk  without
his parachute and released the bombs. If the  plane  had  hit  an  air
pocket or he had lost his balance, he would have  fallen  through  the
bomb bay out of the plane without a parachute.  On  his  22nd  mission
over France, German fighters attacked his plane.  One of their  shells
hit him, causing severe injuries.  His pilot told him he and the  left
waist gunner would be put in for the DFC for releasing the bombs.  The
gunner got the DFC but he never got his.  He is  sure  the  pilot  put
both of them in for the medal, but the pilot was  killed  over  France
and his DFC was probably overlooked in the paper shuffling.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 Aug 43, General “Hap” Arnold decreed by memorandum that the  so-
called “routine or scorecard” basis for awarding the DFC and  the  Air
Medal (AM) would be discontinued.  He believed the “score card”  basis
for awarding the DFC lessened the value of the  award  and  created  a
negative morale factor.  The new criteria for the DFC and AM  required
the commanding official to present a justifiable recommendation  based
on  attending  heroism  and/or  achievement  that  distinguished   the
individual  from  others.   Prior  to  this,  the  minimum  number  of
sorties/missions required for the DFC was typically 25.

In accordance with AFR 900-48, superceded by AFI 36-2803, the  DFC  is
awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement  while  participating
in aerial flight.  Both  heroism  and  achievement  must  be  entirely
distinctive, involving operations that are not routine.   The  DFC  is
not awarded for sustained operational activities and flights.

The applicant’s military records are almost nonexistent.  He  contends
he was a B-24 flight engineer with the 466 Bomber  Group,  787  Bomber
Squad, 8th Army Air Corps; however,  his  meager  records  provide  no
verification.   The  following  information  was  extracted  from  his
existing official documents.

The applicant enlisted in the Army  Air  Corp  on  26  Sep  42  as  an
airplane mechanic/gunner.  He arrived in the European  Theater  on  30
Apr 44.  His campaigns/battles include Normandy, Northern France,  and
Rhineland.

According to information obtained from  the  Hospital  Admission  Card
data files created by the Office of the Surgeon General, Department of
the Army, and made available to the National Personnel Records  Center
(NPRC), the applicant was severely wounded by cannon shell on  15  Aug
44 in the spine/trunk area, intestines, and other parts of  his  body.
He underwent surgery and was hospitalized for approximately 127  days.
He was returned to the US on 28 Apr 45.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 17 Aug 45 in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant after 2  years,  10  months,  and  22  days  of  active
service.  He was awarded the Purple Heart, the European African Middle
Eastern Theater  Medal,  the  Air  Medal  with  two  Bronze  Oak  Leaf
Clusters, and the Good Conduct Medal.

By letter dated 6 Apr 92, the applicant requested the  NPRC  to  award
him the DFC based on the wounds he received on 15  Aug  44,  which  he
contended was his 16th mission.  NPRC advised him  on  20 May  92  his
available records did not provide verification for the DFC.

In Sep 1997, he requested the NPRC provide him a copy of  his  records
and again mentioned the DFC.  The  NPRC  referred  his  letter  to  HQ
AFPC/DPPPRA who, on 29 Dec 97, wrote the applicant  that  his  records
contained no documentation authorizing him award of the  DFC  and  his
request was being returned without action.  He was  also  provided  an
information sheet outlining the procedure for obtaining an award and a
list of service organizations that could assist him.

On 15 Apr 04, the Army Review Boards Agency advised the applicant  his
case was being forwarded to the AFBCMR.  On 27 Apr 04, the Army Review
Boards Agency provided the AFBCMR intake office at Randolph AFB with a
US  Army  Surgeon  General  Hospitalization  File  pertaining  to  the
applicant (see Exhibit B).

On 14 May 04, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA advised the  applicant  he  had  provided
insufficient documentation to substantiate  his  claim  for  the  DFC.
They provided suggestions as to the  type  of  corroborating  evidence
needed to support his case.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPPR  advised  their  search  of  the  applicant’s  military
personnel records found insufficient documentation to  award  him  the
DFC.  The applicant did not provide a  decoration  recommendation  for
the DFC and did not respond to their 14 May 04 letter.  Disapproval is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded that all the  individuals  who  could  provide
proof of his claim are no longer living.  He should have asked for his
medal 60 years ago but did not think about it then.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at 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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded he should be awarded the DFC.  The  applicant  seems  to  be
requesting the DFC on the basis of both his 14th,  or  16th,  mission,
wherein he states he released bombs from an open  bomb  bay,  and  the
wounds he received later on what he believes was his  16th,  or  22nd,
mission on 15 Aug 44, and for which his Purple  Heart  was  presumably
awarded.  However, after August 1943, the DFC was  not  awarded  on  a
mission “scorecard” basis.  Neither  the  applicant  nor  his  records
provide evidence he was recommended for the DFC or that the open  bomb
bay incident occurred as  he  contends.   Regrettably,  the  applicant
indicates  in  his  rebuttal  that  the  individuals  who  could  have
corroborated his claim are no longer living.  In view of the above and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the applicant  has  failed
to sustain his burden  of  having  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  on  which  to
recommend granting the relief sought.  However, we wish to acknowledge
the applicant’s contributions and great personal sacrifice  in  behalf
of our country during a time of great peril.   He  should  take  great
pride in the role he played in our nation’s history.

_________________________________________________________________

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 22 September 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01326 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 19 Jul 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 12 Aug 04.





                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair