RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02073
                                             INDEX CODE:  107.00
      XXXXXXX                     COUNSEL:  DR. ASTON

      XXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 Sep 06


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    He be awarded  the  Distinguished  Service  Cross  (DSC),  or  in  the
alternative, he be awarded the Air Force Cross (AFC).

2.     He  be  awarded  two  Distinguished  Flying  Crosses  (DFCs)  and  an
additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Through counsel, applicant believes he should be awarded  the  DSC  for  his
actions on 5 June 1944.  On that date,  their  aircraft  was  hit  by  enemy
flak.  As a result, the  pilot  was  killed.   In  addition,  the  mission’s
command pilot had his right foot severed by  enemy  flak  and  was  bleeding
profusely from a main artery.  He remained with the command pilot after  the
bail-out bell rang and applied a tourniquet using his belt  and  dusted  the
wound with sulfa.  His extraordinary, heroic, death-defying action  made  it
possible for the  command  pilot  to  regain  complete  consciousness,  take
control of the rapidly descending aircraft with a 500  pound  bomb  hung  in
the bomb bay doors, and turn it back to ditch in the English  Channel,  thus
averting a disastrous crash into an English village, for which  the  command
pilot was awarded the Medal of Honor.  Not only is the request for award  of
the DSC based on his saving the life of the mission’s command pilot, but  on
the fact that he died  before  he  could  recommend  him  for  a  very  high
decoration.  Had the command pilot survived, he would have  recommended  him
for the DSC.

Based on the Eighth Air Force established policy of awarding a DFC upon  the
completion of a tour  of  25  combat  missions  for  radar  aircrew  and  an
additional AM upon the completion of every five heavy  bomber  missions,  he
should have been awarded the DFC and an additional oak leaf cluster  to  the
AM.  His Report of Separation indicates that he was awarded the  Air  Medal,
with three oak leaf clusters (AM, 3 OLC); however,  he  never  received  any
oak leaf clusters or citations for the awards.  Further, he  never  received
a fourth oak leaf cluster to the AM for completion of his 25th through  30th
combat missions.  In addition, it  was  also  Eighth  Air  Force  policy  of
awarding lead crews an oak leaf cluster to the DFC upon completion of  every
10 lead or deputy  lead  combat  missions.   Since  all  of  his  25  combat
missions were flown as lead missions, he should receive an oak leaf  cluster
to the DFC.

In support of the appeal, counsel submits statements from  the  former  66th
Bomb Squadron Commander recommending applicant for award  of  the  DSC,  the
DFC and an additional AM.  He also submits a  recommendation  from  himself,
as the former Deputy Squadron Navigator, recommending the applicant  for  an
additional DFC, a list  of  his  combat  missions,  and  extracts  from  his
military records.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Army Air  Corps  in  the  European,  Asian,  and
Middle Eastern Theatres of Operation from 16 February 1944 to  8  May  1945,
as a B-24 Liberator, radar observer/bombardier.  He completed a total of  25
combat missions  and  participated  in  the  Rhineland,  Ardennes,  Northern
Europe, Normandy, and Air Offensive Europe campaigns.  His  Military  Record
and Report of Separation, issued in conjunction with  his  8 September  1945
release from active duty, reflects that he was awarded the Purple Heart  and
AM, with three oak leaf clusters.

The DSC is awarded to persons who, while serving in any  capacity  with  the
Army, distinguish themselves by extraordinary  heroism  in  connection  with
military operations against an armed enemy.  To warrant award of the  DSC  a
person must perform an act or acts of heroism so  notable  and  involving  a
risk of life so extraordinary as to set him apart from his comrades.

The DFC was established by Congress  on  2 July  1926  and  is  awarded  for
heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in  aerial  flight.
The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary  action
above and beyond the call of duty.

The AM is awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement while  participating
in aerial flight.

During World War II, the Eighth Air Force had an established policy  whereby
a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 25 heavy bomber missions and an  AM
was awarded upon the completion of every five heavy bomber missions.

________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied, and states, in  part,  that
the applicant  has  provided  the  required  recommendations;  however,  the
recommendations  were  not  submitted  through  congressional  channels   as
required by the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states, among other  things,  that  the  1996  NDAA  provisions  are
simply not practical for considering matters from senior  veterans  who  are
all in their 80s and at the end of  their  extended  life  expectancy.   The
1996 NDAA states that  only  a  supervisor  or  commander  or  someone  with
firsthand knowledge, at the time of the act, service,  or  achievement,  may
recommend an individual for a decoration.  The connector for the  conditions
is “or,” not “and” as erroneously stated in the evaluation.   The  applicant
has provided recommendations from his former supervisory officers.  Had  the
recommendations been timely and properly considered  and  processed  at  the
time they were due, they would have  been  approved  under  the  policy  and
guidelines in effect at the time.

Counsel states that the AFBCMR has  favorably  considered  the  requests  of
other lead crew officers who were awarded DFCs for completing a  minimum  of
ten lead missions.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAFPC recommends the applicant’s request for two DFCs based  on  the  number
of missions flown and the DSC on the basis of heroism on  5  June  1944,  be
denied.  However, SAFPC  recommends  he  be  awarded  the  AM,  4  OLC,  for
sustained effort endured over missions 21 through 25 and he be  awarded  the
DFC for heroism on 5 June 1944, rather  than  the  DSC.   SAFPC  states,  in
part, that the DSC is an Army award and unlike the  Air  Force’s  comparable
award, the Air Force Cross (AFC),  requires  the  extraordinary  heroism  to
have occurred in direct combat.  Although the aircraft damage  and  injuries
to the crew were sustained as a direct  result  of  enemy  fire,  after  the
aircraft was headed back to England, it became farther and  farther  removed
from the hostile environment.  Thus, his perilous act did  not  involve  any
risks from enemy action and the Army’s interpretation of  heroism  occurring
in direct combat is not met.  His actions  were  distinctive,  not  routine,
and well above the actions of his fellow crewmembers and merit award of  the
DFC.  Although the 8th Air Force continued to award the  DFC  based  on  the
number of missions flown, despite General Arnold’s  1943  memo,  unless  the
award was submitted for heroism or extraordinary  achievement  on  a  single
mission,  SAFPC  has  consistently  applied  the  policy  outlined  in   the
General’s memo in its consideration of DFC  nominations  for  World  War  II
veterans.  The rare exception to this had  been  when  irrefutable  evidence
was  presented  which  clearly  showed  the  individual  had  been  actually
nominated for the award at the time by his commanders,  but  the  nomination
was either lost or not acted upon.  Since the  applicant  was  awarded  four
AMs for his completion of 20 combat missions, the 8th Air  Force  considered
five combat missions as the period of sustained  effort  meriting  award  of
the AM.

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.   While  SAFPC
implies the act was not performed under enemy fire since  the  aircraft  was
returning to England, the aircraft was still under enemy anti-aircraft  fire
from enemy costal defenses. Further, a fellow  crewmember  was  awarded  the
DFC, and another  the  Silver  Star  (SS),  for  their  actions  during  the
missions.  However, the applicant’s actions were far greater and award of  a
DFC would be grossly inadequate.

Based on the established 8th Air Force policy of awarding  a  DFC  upon  the
completion of a tour of combat missions, an oak leaf cluster for  every  ten
lead or deputy lead missions, and an AM for every five combat missions,  the
applicant became expectant of receiving the promised awards.   It  would  be
inequitable to  deny  his  requests  when  other  8th  Air  Force  and  44th
Bombardment Group members received the DFC  for  identical  combat  missions
during the same period.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit H.

________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice to warrant awarding  two  DFCs  and
an additional oak leaf cluster to the AM.  In  this  respect,  we  note  the
applicant completed a tour of 25 lead combat missions with  three  different
lead pilots as a pool lead  B-24  radar  navigator  while  assigned  to  the
Eighth Air Force.  We also note that during  the  contested  period,  Eighth
Air Force had an established policy whereby  a  DFC  was  awarded  upon  the
completion of a tour of duty and an additional oak leaf cluster  to  the  AM
was awarded upon the completion of every five combat  missions.   The  SAFPC
recommends approval of the request to award an additional oak  leaf  cluster
to  the  AM.   In  support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant  has   provided
recommendations from the former 66th Bombardment Squadron commander and  the
former Deputy  67th  Bombardment  Squadron  Navigator,  who  state  that  in
addition to the above policy, there was an established  policy  of  awarding
the DFC for completion of a minimum of ten lead missions.  In view of  these
statements, and given the total number of missions the applicant  completed,
and the number  of  missions  he  completed  as  lead  radar  navigator,  we
recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.   After thoroughly reviewing the criteria for awarding the DSC,  and  the
extensive documentation concerning the  5  June  1944  mission,  to  include
eyewitness statements from fellow crewmembers and a transcript of an 8  July
1944 British Broadcasting Company (BBC) radio  interview  of  the  mission’s
command  pilot,  a  majority  of  the   Board   believes   the   applicant’s
extraordinary heroism in  direct  combat  was  so  notable  and  involved  a
voluntary risk of life so  extraordinary  as  to  set  him  apart  from  his
comrades and warrants award of the DSC.  In this respect, a majority of  the
Board notes the following:

      a.    In our deliberations of requests for awards from  World  War  II
veterans,  we  are  constantly  frustrated  by  the   lack   of   supporting
documentation,  often  searching  for  just  one  corroborative   piece   of
evidence.  In this case, we have several pieces of evidence  that  this  act
occurred as described by the applicant, as well as recommendations from  the
then acting commander.  The evidence of record  indicates  that  on  5  June
1944, the day prior to the  invasion  of  Normandy  by  Allied  forces,  the
applicant was lead navigator on a bombing mission to  Boulogne.   The  bombs
in the lead aircraft did not deploy on their initial pass over  the  target.
Since they were the lead  aircraft,  the  other  aircraft  involved  in  the
mission did not deploy their ordinance either.  As a result,  the  mission’s
command pilot directed a second pass during  which  time  the  aircraft  was
struck  several  times  by  enemy  anti-aircraft.   The  pilot  was   killed
instantly and the foot of the mission’s command pilot was almost  completely
severed above the ankle, causing him to lose consciousness due to  the  loss
of blood.  After the applicant gave the bail-out order to the  rest  of  the
crew, he voluntarily chose to remain with  the  severely  wounded  mission’s
command pilot and applied a tourniquet and sulfa powder.  He did so  despite
the fact that the aircraft had lost  all  engines,  was  rapidly  descending
from an altitude of 23,000 feet, with an armed 500 pound bomb that  had  not
deployed, and was leaking fuel.

      b.    As a  result  of  the  applicant’s  actions,  the  life  of  the
mission’s command pilot was saved.  Considering his  foot  had  been  almost
completely severed and he was bleeding profusely  from  a  main  artery,  we
believe he would have surely died either as a result of the  loss  of  blood
or the fact that he would never have regained consciousness prior to  impact
but for the applicant’s  actions.   Further,  we  recognize  that  after  he
regained consciousness, the mission’s command pilot was able  to  ditch  the
aircraft in the English channel thus averting a  disastrous  crash  into  an
English village, for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor.

      c.    Following the  mission,  the  applicant  visited  the  mission’s
command pilot in the hospital and was promised that he would  recommend  him
for a “very high decoration” for his actions.   The  applicant  returned  to
performing lead combat missions with other crews and, on 19 March 1945,  his
aircraft was shot down, and he was captured and interned as  a  Prisoner-of-
War (POW) of the  German  army.   The  hospital  aircraft  transporting  the
mission’s command pilot back to the United States was lost at sea  prior  to
him fulfilling his promise of recommending the applicant for  a  “very  high
decoration.”  In addition, the applicant was  never  returned  to  the  44th
Bombardment Group after being repatriated from the POW camp.  Based  on  the
foregoing, a majority of  the  Board  finds  that  a  preponderance  of  the
evidence suggests that through a clerical error or omission,  the  applicant
was never recommended for  the  DSC,  as  well  as  the  two  DFCs  and  the
additional oak leaf cluster to the AM.  We find this  further  evidenced  by
the statement of one of the bombardiers who  indicates  that  the  mission’s
command pilot had told him that he had recommended him for the  SS  for  his
actions during the mission and it had been approved; however, the medal  was
not formally presented until May 1986.

      e.    The Director  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Counsel (SAFPC) indicates that, although the aircraft  damage  and  injuries
to the crew were sustained as a direct  result  of  enemy  fire,  after  the
aircraft was headed back to England, it became farther and  farther  removed
from the  hostile  environment.   Thus,  in  his  opinion,  the  applicant’s
perilous act did not involve any voluntary risks from enemy action and  that
the Army’s interpretation of heroism occurring in direct combat is not  met.
 He does, however, find the applicant’s actions  distinctive,  not  routine,
and well above the actions of his fellow crewmembers, meriting award of  the
DFC for heroism.  The Board majority disagrees.   As  indicated  above,  the
applicant voluntarily chose to remain in the disabled aircraft to  save  the
life of one of his fellow crewmen, despite the fact  the  crippled  aircraft
was rapidly plummeting to the ground from an altitude of 23,000  feet,  with
an armed 500 pound bomb and leaking fuel.  Further, his life-saving  actions
occurred over the bomb target and, as such, occurred in direct  combat.   It
took the aircraft approximately 18 minutes  to  reach  the  English  Channel
from the target area.  Had his  actions  not  occurred  at  that  time,  the
mission’s command pilot  would  surely  have  bled  to  death  in  those  18
minutes.  In addition, the aircraft was well within  range  of  the  heavily
fortified  costal  enemy  air-defense  positions,  which  had  been  heavily
strengthened in anticipation of the Allied invasion of Normandy.

      f.    In view of the above, and upon consideration of the  actions  of
his two fellow crewmembers who were awarded the DFC and SS,  a  majority  of
the Board believes the applicant’s heroic act of  staying  on  the  severely
damaged aircraft to apply first aid to save the  mission’s  command  pilot’s
life after all others capable of bailing out had done so,  while  having  no
guarantee that he would be able to escape himself, was  clearly  so  notable
and involved a voluntary risk of life so extraordinary as to set  him  apart
from his comrades and most certainly warrants award of the DSC.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.    On 5 June 1944, he was awarded the Distinguished  Service  Cross
for extraordinary heroism against an enemy of the United States.

      b.    On 1 January 1945,  he  was  awarded  the  Distinguished  Flying
Cross  (DFC),  for  extraordinary  achievement,  while  serving  as  a  Lead
Navigator on B-24 airplanes on ten (10) combat missions over enemy  occupied
Continental Europe.

      c.    On 14 February 1945, he was awarded the  Air  Medal,  Fifth  Oak
Leaf Cluster,  for  extraordinary  achievement,  while  serving  as  a  Lead
Navigator  on  B-24  airplanes  on  many  bombardment  missions  over  enemy
occupied Continental Europe.

      d.    On 15 February 1945, he was  awarded  the  Distinguished  Flying
Cross, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while  serving
as a Lead Navigator on B-24 airplanes  on  many  bombardment  missions  over
enemy occupied Continental Europe.

________________________________________________________________





The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2005-02073
in Executive Session on 29 August 2005, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

All members voted to award two DFCs and an additional oak  leaf  cluster  to
the AM.   A  majority  of  the  Board  also  voted  to  award  the  DSC  for
applicant’s actions on 5 June 1944; however, Mr. Russell voted to award  the
DFC, and has  provided  a  Minority  Report  that  is  at  Exhibit  I.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 28 Jul 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 1 Aug 05, w/atch.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAFPC, dated 19 Aug 05.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Aug 05.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 28 Aug 05, w/atch.
     Exhibit I.  Minority Report, dated 31 Aug 05.




                                  MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                  Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2005-02073




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

                 a.    On 5 June 1944, he was awarded the Distinguished
Service Cross for extraordinary heroism against an enemy of the United
States.

                 b.    On 1 January 1945, he was awarded the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC), for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Lead
Navigator on B-24 airplanes on ten (10) combat missions over enemy occupied
Continental Europe.

                 c.    On 14 February 1945, he was awarded the Air Medal,
Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a
Lead Navigator on B-24 airplanes on many bombardment missions over enemy
occupied Continental Europe.

                 d.    On 15 February 1945, he was awarded the
Distinguished Flying Cross, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary
achievement, while serving as a Lead Navigator on B-24 airplanes on many
bombardment missions over enemy occupied Continental Europe.









JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency