ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03796
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 June 2006
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Silver Star (SS) for his actions during a bombing raid to
a strategic target at Hamburg, Germany, on 30 October 1944.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 2 March 2005, the Board considered applicant’s request for the SS and
found no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief requested. For
an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s
separation, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the
Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.
On 25 July 2005 and 9 January 2006, the applicant submitted requests for
reconsideration and provided additional documentation. In further support
of the appeal, applicant submits statements from the former squadron
navigator and former squadron commander. The applicant’s complete
submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit G and H.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted by
applicant and the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that he has been
the victim of error or injustice. In this respect, we note the Silver Star
(SS) is awarded for gallantry in action, i.e., heroism in high degree
including risk of life, not warranting award of the Medal of Honor (MOH) or
the Distinguished Service Cross (DCS). We have thoroughly reviewed the
affidavits submitted in support of applicant’s request, and although they
attest to his extraordinary leadership and navigational ability in leading
the aircraft to the bombing target, they do not persuade us that his
actions on 30 October 1944 rose to the degree of gallantry in action to
warrant awarding the SS. While the applicant was exposed to enemy fire
during the mission, it was no more than his fellow aircrew members.
Further, unlike the pilot/aircraft commander, as an aircrew member his
exposure to enemy fire was through no choice of his own, but rather the
voluntary actions of the pilot/aircraft commander. We also note that
during World War II, lead crews were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross
(DFC) upon completion of every 10 lead or deputy lead combat missions. The
personal sacrifice applicant endured for his country is duly noted and our
decision in no way diminishes the high regard we have for his service;
however, insufficient documentary evidence has been presented to warrant
awarding him the SS. Therefore, 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 additional 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-2004-03796
in Executive Session on 24 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 14 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jul 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Facsimile Cover Page, Applicant, dated 9 Jan 05,
w/atchs.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03796
In support of the appeal, applicant submits an affidavit and narrative recommendation for award of the SS from the former group commander indicating that based on the applicant’s actions during the subject mission, he should have been awarded the SS. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec...
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 | CY2008 | bc-2004-03796-4
The applicant’s complete submissions, with attachment, are at Exhibits L through N. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted by the applicant and the evidence of record, a majority of the Board does do not believe he has overcome the rationale expressed in the Board’s previous decision. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2004-03796-6
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 2 March 2005, the Board considered applicant’s request for the SS and found no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief requested. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member Mr. Patrick C....
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01826
In support of his request, the applicant submits his personal statement, Congressional correspondence, recommendations from his former commander/Director of Combat Operations Fifth Air Force, narrative recommendations, proposed citations, a statement from his wingman on the 28 June 1952 mission, extracts from his personal copies of his military records to include flight records, mission reports, a copy of the only other DSC awarded in the wing, translated Russian mission reports for...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02153
STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the information provided by the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA), on 6 Aug 45, the pilot was awarded the DSC for his work on the Manhattan Project and his participation in the first atomic bomb mission on 6 Aug 45. By his high degree of skill in directing work with the atomic bomb, and great personal risk in placing the powder charge in the bomb during flight, the former service member distinguished himself, reflecting the highest credit on...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02528 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He and his crew be awarded an unspecified decoration for destroying enemy jet fighters during a bombing mission from Italy to Berlin, Germany, on 24 Mar 45. On 12 Apr 96, a Congressional representative requested that the applicant and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-02742
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The former group leader states that on the date in question, after the attacks of the first five flights had not resulted in the total destruction of a heavily defended, long single rail bridge located in a valley so situated as to be almost constantly in a crosswind, the applicant made two runs at the target, destroying two spans on his final pass. Given the adverse conditions the applicant overcame, i.e., heavily...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03117
They state, in part, that based upon the criteria used in 1943 there is no basis for any award. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the Congressman McIntyres office, on behalf of the applicant, via electronic mail (email) on 12 Aug 13 for review and comment within 30 days. Although official documents do reference the co-pilot being wounded, there...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02179
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02179 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and two additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). In addition, based on the Eighth Air Force policy...