RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01687
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of captain.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His rank of 1st lieutenant should be changed to captain according to his
records reflecting him as a navigator.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of WD AGO Form 100,
Separation Qualification Record, list of missions flown, GO-164,
Distinguished Flying Cross, and letters of recommendation.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.
Therefore, the facts surrounding his service and separation from the Air
Force cannot be verified.
Based on available documentation, the applicant entered in the Army Air
Corps on 24 February 1944 as a 2nd lieutenant. He was honorably discharged
on 18 November 1945 in the grade of 1st lieutenant after serving 1 year and
14 days of total active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial and states that there is insufficient
documentation to support the applicant’s claim that he was
eligible/recommended for promotion to captain. We have no recommendation
should the board elect to grant relief to the applicant over our objection.
Normally officers were not recommended for promotion, nor was a
recommendation forwarded or approved by a commander exercising promotion
authority unless a position vacancy existed under the jurisdiction of the
commander concerned in the grade to which promotion was recommended. In
addition, officers were not recommended for promotion until they reached
the minimum TIG requirements. We cannot determine the applicant’s
promotion eligibility for captain, as we do not know when he was promoted
to first lieutenant.
AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that after flying
two missions, he was reassigned to the Lackey crew and he was designated as
a lead crew. A lead crew was requested to fly 30 missions to complete its
tour of duty. When he joined the lackey crew, they had already completed
seven missions and he had two. When they finished their 30 missions, he
still had five missions to fly to complete his tour of duty. He was then
transferred to the Kenny crew.
On 29 July 1944, the pilot, Lacy Lackey, was promoted from 1st lieutenant
to captain and assigned as flight commander and the bombardier and he was
promoted from 2nd lieutenant to 1st lieutenant and assigned as flight
bombardier and flight navigator. All three officers were promoted from
having flown 15 lead missions. After this promotion, he flew another 11
lead missions as wing and lead navigator and he was to receive the
promotion to captain for this. This is the promotion he is asking for
which he is entitled.
As a group, wing navigator, his responsibility was to lead the group and
wing of planes to the designated target and return them to their bases. He
was able to accomplish all but one mission. When you are flying as a lead
navigator on a B-17 bomber, you are not promoted by how long you held that
rank, but what you accomplished while you were in combat.
Applicant’s complete 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case to include his own
statement that he refused the promotion to captain for personal reasons;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. It appears that the discerning factor in this case, is that
there is insufficient documentation to support the applicant’s claim that
he was eligible or recommended for promotion to the grade of captain. In
view of the above, we find no basis upon which 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 BC-2004-01687
in Executive Session on 4 January 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149 undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Oct 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Oct 04
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 9 Nov 04.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
He be promoted to the grade of captain in 1945 upon separation from active duty or in 1950 after serving an additional five years in the Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded a DFC since he and the pilot were recommended at the same time and for the same mission and the pilot received his DFC; or in the alternative, he should be awarded the DFC based on the completion of 35 combat missions. A complete...
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...
There is no indication in his records, and he did not provide any documentation, showing he was recommended for the DFC or an oak leaf cluster to his AM. The operative word in [the former group commander’s] statement that the Chief apparently overlooked is “Before” [emphasis applicant’s]. Therefore, the criteria for that command was not completion of a specified number of missions (35) before being recommended for the DFC and completing a tour.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02255
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02255 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two Distinguished Flying Crosses (DFCs), an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM), and the Army Commendation Medal (ACM). In this...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00705
In his application for extended active duty, he indicated he was hospitalized after being shot down in the North Sea and later rescued from a rubber life boat, and that he was suspended from all flying duty as a result of this and subsequent combat experiences. On his fifth mission, the pilot ditched the plane at sea after it was severely shot up. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR reports that they researched the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01524
During World War II, the Far East Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 500 combat hours and an AM was awarded upon the completion of 100 combat hours. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for the DFC be denied and states, in part, that the applicant did not provide a letter of recommendation to verify his entitlement to the DFC. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01534
None of the applicant’s Air Medals were awarded for a specified number of combat flight missions; they were awarded by the 15th Air Force for specific dates as follows: - Basic Air Medal (AM), awarded for the period 17 August-3 September 1944, by General Order (GO) 2789, dated 3 October 1944. Even though the applicant has not substantiated that he was ever recommended for award of the Fifth and Sixth Oak Leaf Clusters to the Air Medal, after a thorough review of his submission, the Board...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00453
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00453 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 August 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, First Oak Leaf Cluster (DFC, 1 OLC) and the Air Medal, Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster (AM, 5 OLC). The DFC was established...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02052
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02052 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two additional oak leaf cluster to the Distinguished Flying Cross and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal. In 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...