RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01621
INDEX CODE: 107.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 November 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was promised the DFC, but never received it.
In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of a letter
from his group navigator and correspondence with congressional members in
his pursuit of the DFC. The applicant’s submission, with attachments, is
at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant entered active duty as a commissioned officer on 10 June 1944 and
was assigned to duty in the Army Air Corps as a flight officer. He
performed duties as a Bombardier. He was honorably relieved from active
duty on 23 September 1945 in the grade of first lieutenant, having served 1
year, 3 months and 13 days of total active military service, of which 6
months and 22 days was foreign service. His separation document shows he
participated in the Ardennes and Germany campaigns. He was awarded the Air
Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters, the European African Middle Eastern
Campaign Medal with two Bronze Stars, and the European Theater of
Operations Ribbon.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial for the award of the DFC. DPPPR states that
following a review of the applicant’s official military record and the
provided documentation, they were unable to verify his entitlement to the
DFC. A letter from his group navigator indicates the applicant flew five
missions over Germany and should have been awarded the DFC. However, the
DFC requirements changed on 14 August 1943 from missions and “score card”
criteria to an actual recommendation. Under the revised policy, the DFC
could be awarded for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary
achievement while participating in aerial flight. The DPPPR evaluation is
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 July
2005, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 available
records, we found no evidence that the applicant is eligible for the award
of the DFC. We note the applicant’s assertion that he was promised the DFC
for temporarily filling the navigator position on five missions until a
replacement could be found. In addition, we have reviewed the supporting
statements from the group navigator and note his recollections of the
events. However, we note that the requirements changed in 1943 from
mission criteria to an actual recommendation. In view of this change, we
agree with the opinion from the Air Force office of primary responsibility
that the applicant’s achievement does not meet the requirements for the
award of a DFC. There is no indication in his records that he was
recommended for, or awarded, the DFC. The personal sacrifice the applicant
endured for his country is noted and the recommendation to deny the
requested relief in no way diminishes the high regard we have for his
service. Nevertheless, in view of the above, we find no basis 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 this application in Executive
Session on 1 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-01621
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, not dated.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 1 Jul 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 05.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00700
In this respect, we note that counsel has failed to provide evidence that the member was ever recommended for a BSM. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 May 1944, he was awarded the Air Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Navigator on B-17 airplanes on many bombardment...
He also completed three missions as a B-17F navigator. During World War II, the 8th Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 30 combat flight missions and an AM was awarded upon the completion of five missions. In 1944, the 8th Air Force required completion of 30 combat flight missions; however, the applicant did not complete 30 missions.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02508
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 October 2005, for review and response within 30 days. We took note of the documentation provided in support of the applicant's request for award of the DFC for completion of 14 lead crew missions and an additional AM for completion of his last five missions. ...
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 | 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-2005-02073
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03024
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of a 452nd Bombardment Squadron letter, dated 24 May 1945, indicating he completed 11 flight lead missions as a pilot. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for an additional AM be denied, and states, in part, that applicant’s records did not contain a copy of a recommendation letter or special order awarding him an AM, 6 OLC for lead combat...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02084
After a thorough review of the applicant’s military personnel record, they are unable to find evidence that he was recommended for award of the DFC. We note the letters from two crew members who served with the applicant who indicate they were also promised the DFC for completing 50 missions flown while participating in combat. While the Board does recognize his extraordinary accomplishments in the defense of our nation during wartime, we note there is no indication in the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00357 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03175
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03175 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 APR 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His father be awarded the Air Medal (AM) Silver Oak Leaf Cluster (SOLC) and the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for completing 14 lead crew missions with the 755th Squadron. We took...