RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00679
                                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 AUG 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and the Air  Medal  (AM),
Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A memorandum from the Fifth Army,  dated  4  January  1949,  stated  he  was
entitled to the DFC and AM but they were not awarded or issued at  the  time
of his separation.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his  WG  AGO
Form 53, Military Record and Report of Separation, a copy of his  separation
qualification record and documents associated with the award of the DFC  and
AM.  The applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered active duty as a commissioned officer  on  2 January  1944
and was assigned to duty in the Air Corps in the grade of first  lieutenant.
 He performed duties as a Twin  Engine  Fighter  Pilot.   He  was  honorably
relieved from active duty on 13 February 1946,  having  served  2  years,  1
months and 28 days of total active military service, of which 11 months  and
10 days was foreign service.  His separation document shows he  participated
in the Southern and Northern Philippines and Western Pacific campaigns.   He
was awarded the Air Medal w/1OLC, Asiatic Pacific Theater Ribbon w/3  bronze
stars, Victory Medal, Philippine Liberation Ribbon w/1 bronze star  and  the
American Theater Ribbon.

On 1 April 1953  his  commission  in  the  Reserve  of  the  Air  Force  was
terminated  for  failure  to  respond  to  a  tender  of   indefinite   term
appointment.

On 25 March 2005, the Air Force Personnel Center Separations  Branch  issued
a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form  214,  adding  the  AM  w/2OLC  to  the
applicant’s records.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial for the award of the  DFC.   DPPPR  states  the
applicant’s official military record contains a letter  stating  there’s  no
recommendation for the award of the DFC.  In addition, there is no  evidence
to show that he flew 500 missions to meet the requirements for award of  the
DFC.  DPPPR  believes  that  the  applicant  was  awarded  the  AM  for  his
operational flight missions in 1946.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit  C.


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Difficulty in deciphering the applicant’s written letter does not allow  for
an accurate interpretation.  The following  information  is  an  attempt  to
convey the applicant’s message.  “I did something in  1945  that  has  never
been done before in the history of the Air Force.  What started off  like  a
routine mission ended up in a worse (sic) position any pilot could  be  in.”
“When my plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire  …  hundred(s)  of  miles  away
from our air base … I had to reach in order to save my  life  and  my  plane
because 12 planes took off that morning but only eleven  returned.”   “Seems
Mr. Townsend, thinks I was awarded the AM for all missions that  I  flew  in
1946 and that I didn’t do either one of them” (See Exhibit E).

On 3 May 2005, the applicant’s nephew wrote  a  letter  on  the  applicant’s
behalf and states he can only relate anecdotal  stories.   He  believes  the
basis for his uncle’s request is not the 500 hours  of  combat  flight  time
but related to another incident.  While engaged in a strafing  attack  on  a
Japanese  installation,  his  plane   was   hit   by   anti-aircraft   fire.
Apparently, his uncle flew the entire way from the  point  of  the  incident
back to the Philippines not much above the tops of the trees or the tops  of
the waves.  The applicant and applicant’s nephew’s letter are at Exhibit  F.


_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
available records, we found no evidence that the applicant is  eligible  for
award of the DFC.  While we note the applicant’s submission of a  4  January
1949 letter from the Fifth Army Area indicating  his  award  of  a  DFC  was
pending, there is no evidence to indicate the award was ever  approved.   In
addition, there is no evidence to support he completed 500 hours  of  combat
flight time required, at that time, for award of the DFC or that he met  any
other eligibility criteria for award of the DFC.   Evidence  does;  however,
support the  applicant’s  award  of  the  AM  with  2OLC  for  his  acts  of
meritorious achievement in the Pacific Theater and we  note  the  Air  Force
has administratively corrected his record to reflect this  award.   We  find
no evidence to indicate the  applicant  was  treated  any  differently  than
other military members with similar accomplishments.   Therefore,  we  agree
with the opinion from the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility  that
the applicant is not a victim of error or injustice in regard  to  award  of
the DFC.  The applicant’s heroism is  noted  and  our  decision  in  no  way
lessens the value of his military contributions, nor does  it  diminish  the
high regard we have for his service.  Nevertheless, in view  of  the  above,
we find no basis to favorably consider his request for the DFC.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
                 Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2005-00679:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/ DPPPR, not dated.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, not dated, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Nephew, dated 26 Apr 05,
                   w/atchs.




                                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                                   Panel Chair