RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02084
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  THE AMERICAN LEGION

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  03 JAN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Award of the DFC was promised to all crew members before  leaving  Manduria,
Italy, in 1945, upon completing fifty missions  flying  the  B-24  Liberator
Bombers.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Portions of the applicant's military personnel  records  were  destroyed  by
fire in 1973 at the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC)  in  St.  Louis,
Missouri.  The available records indicate the following.

The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 2 October 1942.

On 22 October 1945, the applicant was honorably discharged in the  grade  of
staff sergeant under the provisions of AR 615-365, RR  1-1  (Convenience  of
the Government - Demobilization).  He served 3 years and 21  days  of  total
active service.

The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 Enlisted Record and Report of  Separation,
Honorable  Discharge,  indicates  the  applicant  received   the   following
decorations and citations:  the European-African-Middle Eastern Ribbon  with
four Bronze Stars (EAME w/4BS), Good Conduct  Medal  (GCM),  the  Air  Medal
with two Bronze and one Silver Clusters, and the Distinguished Unit Badge.

The applicant’s WD AGO Form 100 (Separation Qualification  Record),  Summary
of  Military  Occupations,  indicates  the  applicant   served   as   flight
maintenance gunner for seven months overseas and 18 months  in  the  states;
he assisted the pilot of a multi-engine aircraft by maintaining  a  constant
check on its mechanical functioning; made  limited  repairs  and  mechanical
adjustments while in flight; made fuel transfers  from  tank  to  tank;  and
when necessary, he manned a 50 caliber machine gun and received  credit  for
shooting down one enemy fighter.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial indicating the applicant has not provided  any
documentation showing he was recommended  for  award  of  the  DFC  such  as
special orders or a signed recommendation from his chain  of  command.   The
applicant submitted two signed statements from  individuals  with  the  same
promise that they would receive  the  DFC  for  50  missions  flown.   In  a
previous request through the congressional  office  on  6  April  2004,  the
applicant was sent the National  Defense  Authorization  Act  (NDAA)  Rules.
Since  the  applicant  has  not  provided  any  necessary  documentation  to
substantiate his claim, they are unable to verify his eligibility for  award
of the DFC.

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.
The requirements for award of the DFC changed dramatically in the middle  of
World War II.  Early in 1943 while visiting  the  various  combat  theaters,
General Hap Arnold expressed his concern with  the  large  number  of  DFC’s
being awarded.  Under policy existing prior to 14 August 1943, the  DFC  was
awarded on the basis of the number of hours or missions completed.   General
Arnold believed that this so called “score card” basis  lessened  the  value
of the award  and  created  a  negative  morale  factor.   To  correct  this
situation, it was decided by General Arnold that the “score card” basis  for
awarding the DFC be discontinued.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 August 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the
applicant and counsel for review and response 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 an error or injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  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 an injustice.  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  available  personnel  records  to  substantiate  that  he   was
recommended by anyone in his chain of command for  the  DFC.   Further,  the
applicant has not provided documentation to substantiate his  claim  to  the
DFC.  Therefore, his entitlement to the DFC cannot be verified.  In view  of
the above and in the absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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 22 September 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Panel Chair
            Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
            Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member






The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2005-02084 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 April 2005, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 28 July 2005.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 August 2005.




                       CHRISTOPHER D. CAREY
                       Panel Chair