RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02470
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 FEB 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he received the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC), and a Silver Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal (AM
w/1 SOLC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He completed 14 lead crew missions and he recently learned that lead
crews who completed 10 missions or more were entitled to receive the
DFC during World War II (WWII). He also recently learned the
navigator of his crew received the DFC for the 14 missions they flew.
He further requests a Silver Oak Leaf Cluster be added to his AM after
the completion of his last five missions. He further believes his
experience with the superchargers is worthy of consideration.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the
National Personnel Records Center.
The available records reveal that the applicant served on active duty
from 21 February 1943 through 27 July 1945. He had an overseas tour
in the European Theater of Operations from 7 June 1944 through 24 May
1945.
His WD AGO 53-55 reflects he was awarded the Air Medal (AM) with four
Oak Leaf Clusters (OLC), the Good Conduct Medal (GCM), the
European-African Middle Eastern Service Medal (EAME) and a Lapel
Button. A DD Form 215 dated 25 August 2005 added the American
Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal to his record.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPR states prior to 14 August 1943, the DFC and AM were
awarded on the basis of the number of hours of missions completed.
However, General Arnold believed that this so called “score card”
basis lessened the value of the award and created negative morale.
General Arnold in an effort to correct the situation decided that the
“score card” basis for the award of the DFC be discontinued.
A thorough review of the applicant’s records does not reveal that he
was recommended for award of the DFC or the AM with a SOLC. HQ
AFPC/DPPPR cannot verify the applicant’s eligibility for the DFC as he
did not provided a copy of a certificate or special order, or a
decoration recommendation for the DFC. The applicant has not provided
any supporting documentation in support of his request for the DFC or
AM with a SOLC.
AFPC/DPPPR recommends the requested relief be denied.
A complete copy of the Air Force 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
26 August 2005, for review and response. 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 an injustice. We took
note of the documentation provided in support of the applicant’s
request for award the DFC and AM w/1 SOLC. After thoroughly reviewing
the available personnel records, we found no evidence to verify he was
eligible for or recommended for either award. Nor, is there any
available evidence in the applicant’s records indicating he met the
criteria for the DFC or AM w/1 SOLC. While we are not unmindful or
unappreciative of the servicemember’s service to his Nation, in the
absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-02470 in Executive Session on 3 November 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2005-02470 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 22 Aug 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Sep 05.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-01524
During World War II, the Far East Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 500 combat hours and an AM was awarded upon the completion of 100 combat hours. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for the DFC be denied and states, in part, that the applicant did not provide a letter of recommendation to verify his entitlement to the DFC. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-02470-2
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02470 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: DR. LEE ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal. In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the former 67th Bombardment Squadron Deputy...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00538
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00538 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded three additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02052
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02052 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two additional oak leaf cluster to the Distinguished Flying Cross and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal. In 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03794
In BC-2004-02294, the AFBCMR awarded a DFC to an applicant who had also completed more than the required ten missions as a lead navigator and an additional oak leaf cluster for completion of a tour of 32 combat missions. AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that although the applicant’s records indicate that he completed a total of 35 combat missions and he has submitted a DFC recommendation signed by his former commander, in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02299
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02299 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded an additional oak leaf cluster to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and two additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00413
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should receive the DFC and SS with 9 battle stars based on his successful completion of 50 combat missions and since he was shot down 3 times. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of applicant’s request for the DFC and states, in part, that in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...
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...