RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00994

            INDEX CODE:      107.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 AUG 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show  he  was  awarded  the  Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  He should be awarded the DFC, because the DFC  was  being  awarded
after 25 missions and he had 32 missions.

2.  Other members of his squadron received the DFC; however he did not
receive the DFC because he was shot down and held as a prisoner of war
(POW).

In support of his request, applicant submits the name and  address  of
two  crewmembers  in  his  squadron  that   received   the   DFC   and
documentation related to his congressional inquiry.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.
 His available records reflect he enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 23
November 1942, and was released from active duty on  27 October  1945.
He was a POW from 16 August 1944 until 2 May 1945.

His report of separation reflects award of the European African Middle
Eastern Service Medal, the Air Medal with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters (AM  w/3
OLC) and the Good Conduct Medal.

On 3 February 1996, the applicant submitted  a  request  for  the  DFC
through his  congressman.   On  25  June  1996,  he  was  informed  by
AFPC/DPPPRS they were unable to  determine  his  entitlement  to  this
award and his records did  not  contain  a  recommendation  or  orders
indicating he was awarded the DFC.  He was also informed that  General
Arnold changed the policy for the DFC from number of missions flown to
a fully justified recommendation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial.  DPPPR states after a thorough review of
the applicant’s limited military record  and  provided  documentation,
they were unable to verify his entitlement to the DFC.  The  applicant
identified two crewmembers of his unit who received the  DFC  in  June
1944.  After a complete review of all three official military  records
they were able to confirm the two crewmembers received the DFC  for  a
number of bombardment missions flown over Europe in June 1944, and the
applicant receiving the Air Medal w/3 OLC in June 1944.

The DFC medal is awarded to any officer or enlisted man of  the  Armed
Forces who shall  have  distinguished  himself  in  actual  combat  in
support of operations by “heroism or extraordinary  achievement  while
participating in an aerial flight.   Initially,  this  decoration  was
awarded based on the number of combat missions flown,  or  “scorecard”
basis.

On 14 August 1943, General Henry “Hap” Arnold changed this policy  and
required  a  fully  justified  recommendation   in   which   immediate
supervisors or commanders had  to  submit  a  written  narrative  that
outlined the heroic act or extraordinary  achievement  that  warranted
the DFC.

DPPPR states the applicant’s official military personnel  record  does
not contain a recommendation  or  special  orders  indicating  he  was
awarded the DFC.  He  requested  the  DFC  through  his  congressman’s
office in June 1996 and was  informed  a  written  recommendation  was
required for award of the DFC.

He received the AM w/3 OLC  during  the  time  both  crewmembers  were
awarded the DFC in June 1944.  Member cannot receive  two  decorations
for  the  same  act  or  achievement.   This  would  constitute   dual
recognition.  To be considered  for  a  one-time  reconsideratioon  or
decoration upgrade would require a written  request  for  this  action
from the recommending official or commander within the approval chain.


The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
May 2005, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,  no
response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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 presented and the available evidence of record,  we  are  not
persuaded that award of the DFC is warranted.  The  Board  notes,  the
policy for awarding the DFC based on the  number  of  combat  missions
flown was changed on 19 August 1943.  This change required a justified
recommendation from the chain of command outlining the heroic  act  or
extraordinary achievement and no evidence has been presented  to  show
the applicant was recommended for the DFC in  1944.   The  Board  also
notes, the applicant received the Air Medal w/3 OLC  during  the  time
both crewmembers were awarded the DFC in June 1944 and members  cannot
receive two decorations for the same act or  achievement.   Therefore,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the  absence  of
persuasive 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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00994 in Executive Session on 29 June 2005, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                 Ms. Patricia A. Robey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 29 Apr 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.




      GREGORY H. PETKOFF
      Panel Chair