RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01738
            INDEX CODE: 107.00

       (Member/Uncle)  COUNSEL:  None
       (Applicant/Nephew)

      063-14-5768      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 NOV 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His uncle be awarded the Silver Star (SS) [or some other fitting award
- See Exhibit E] for heroic actions performed in World War II  (WWII),
and his records reflect receipt of the Purple Heart with 1st Oak  Leaf
Cluster (PH 1OLC), the Air Medal (AM) with 6th and 7th OLC,  the  Good
Conduct Medal  (GCM),  the  Prisoner  of  War  (POW)  Medal,  campaign
ribbons, and the Letters of Commendation (LOCs) for Mission  #76  over
Anklam, Germany, be included in his records.

[Note:  The member’s records have been administratively  corrected  to
reflect receipt of the GCM and the POW  Medal,  as  well  as  his  POW
status from 20 Oct 43 through 21 Jan 45 at Stalag 17B, Krem, Austria.]

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant, through a Power of Attorney (POA),  is  acting  in  his
uncle’s  behalf.   His  mother  told  him  about  his   uncle’s   WWII
experiences when he was a child.  However, it was not until he started
genealogical  research  into  his  family  seven  years  ago  that  he
discovered,  in  Dec  04,  a  Casualty  Questionnaire  and   statement
completed by 2nd  Lieutenant  (2LT)  D--,  a  B-17  bombardier.   This
document was part of the Missing Aircraft  Report  (MACR)  #1033  that
confirms his uncle saved the life of the co-pilot, 2LT G--  on  20 Oct
43.  His uncle did not receive an award for  this  action  and  should
receive the SS.

The applicant provides, along  with  numerous  other  documents,  what
appears to be a partial, undated, handwritten statement signed by  2LT
D--.  The bombardier writes that, on 20 Oct 43, all crew  members  had
checked in after the B-17 was hit except  the  member,  who  had  been
injured and was trapped between the top turret’s  sight  and  housing.
After freeing himself and while the burning plane was going down,  the
member helped 2LT G-- bail out of the plane with the rest of the crew.
  In  addition,  2LT  D--  opined  that  the  member  should   receive
recognition for this act.  Also, 2LT D-- indicated the  member’s  left
eye had been injured and that he believed  the  member  hit  the  lead
fighter.

Also submitted are the LOCs,  documents  the  applicant  contends  are
mission reports for the 303rd  Bombardier  Group  (303BG)  for  Combat
Missions #72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,  and  79.   The  report  for  Combat
Mission #79 indicates the 303BG was to bomb Duren, Germany, on  20 Oct
43.  The member was the aerial engineer  [gunner],  2LT  D--  was  the
bombardier, and 2LT G-- was the co-pilot on the  B-17  named  “Charlie
Horse.”  The formation was ambushed by enemy  attack  and,  when  last
seen, “Charlie Horse” was on fire and in a spin.  It later blew up and
crashed near Mons, Belgium.  Some crew members evaded capture but  the
member and 2LTs D-- and  G--  were  among  those  captured  and  taken
prisoner.  The report provided no comments on events that  took  place
in the  damaged  aircraft  before  it  crashed.   The  applicant  also
includes a Jun 90 Hell’s Angels Newsletter article questioning whether
the 303BG was shortchanged on awards because no one bothered to do the
paperwork.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The member was inducted into the Army Air  Corps  on  20 Aug  42,  and
entered active duty as a B-17 aerial engineer gunner on 3 Sep 42.   He
was deployed to the  Euro-African-Middle  Eastern  (EAME)  Theater  of
Operations on 4 Sep 43, with the 358th  Bombardier  Squadron  (358BS),
303BG, 8th Air Force (8AF), in England.

On 20 Oct 43, the member was taken prisoner after his B-17  apparently
was downed during a bombing mission over Germany.

The member was returned to the US on 21 Feb 45, and on 10 Nov 45,  was
honorably separated in the grade of technical sergeant after 3  years,
2 months, and 21 days of  active  service.   His  WD  AGO  Form  53-55
reflects he received the PH for wounds sustained on 23 Oct 43, the AM,
the Presidential Unit Citation  (PUC),  the  American  Campaign  Medal
(ACM), the WWII Victory Medal (WWIIVM), and the EAME with  one  Battle
Star (1BS). [Note:  The applicant’s squadron  was  credited  with  six
European campaigns:  Air Offensive, Europe  (4 Jul  42  -  5 Jun  44);
Ardennes-Alsace (16 Dec 44 - 25 Jan  45);  Central  Europe  (22 Mar  -
11 May 45); Normandy (6 Jun - 24 Jul 44); Northern  France  (25 Jul  -
14 Sep 44); and Rhineland (15 Sep 44 - 21 Mar 45).  The applicant  was
assigned to the 358BS for the period 4 Sep 43 - 11 Feb 45, but  was  a
POW during 20 Oct 43 - 21 Jan 45.  Therefore, he is entitled  to  only
one campaign credit, i.e., 1BS, with his EAME.]

On 29 Jun 05, HQ AFPC/DPPRSP advised the applicant  that  his  uncle’s
separation document had been administratively corrected  to  show  the
member received the GCM and the POW Medal, and that he had been a  POW
from 20 Oct 43 to 21 Jan 45 at Stalag 17B, Kerm, Austria.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to inquiries from  the  applicant  regarding  HQ AFPC/DPPPR’s
original 27 Jun 05 advisory,  and  the  AFBCMR  Staff’s  requests  for
additional information, HQ AFPC/DPPPR provided  a  corrected  advisory
with the additional date of  26 Oct  05.   The  corrected  version  is
summarized below:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR was able to verify the member’s entitlement to  the  PH,
the AM, the PUC, the Distinguished Unit Badge  (DUC),  the  EAME  with
1BS, the ACM, and the WWIIVM.  They note 2LT D-- did not make a formal
recommendation stating which decoration the member should be  awarded.
Neither  applicants  nor  family  members  can  submit  a   decoration
recommendation on any US military member.  A decoration recommendation
must be submitted from a member’s chain of command or by  someone  who
had firsthand knowledge of  the  act  or  achievement.   There  is  no
official decoration recommendation or eyewitness statements  submitted
with this claim to be considered for the SS, the LOCs (approved by the
Department of the Army), or the AM 6OLC and 7OLC for Mission #76  over
Germany.  While decoration timelines were waived under the Fiscal Year
1996   National   Defense   Authorization    Act    (NDAA),    written
recommendations must be made by someone, other than  the  member,  who
was in the member’s chain of command and who had  firsthand  knowledge
of the act.  Further, the recommendation must be submitted  through  a
Congressional Member who can request a military service  to  review  a
proposal for decoration based on the merits of the  proposal  and  the
award criteria in existence when the  event  occurred.   There  is  no
additional documentation in the member’s military records  to  justify
the second PH.  They recommend disapproval of  the  requested  SS,  PH
1OLC, AM w/6OLC and 7OLC, and the LOCs.

Complete copies  of  the  26 Oct  05  corrected  evaluation,  and  the
original 27 Jun 05 advisory, are at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts his uncle lost his left eye  when  his  aircraft
was attacked on 20 Oct 43.  His uncle, who was blinded in and bleeding
from his left eye, noticed 2LT G-- was losing consciousness from  lack
of oxygen from the rapid descent and helped him harness his  parachute
and exit the plane.  Further, his  uncle  shot  down  the  lead  enemy
fighter  and  disabled  the  fighter  responsible  for  shooting   his
aircraft.  The applicant is aware there are criteria for granting  the
SS and to find evidence that meets the criteria  60  years  after  the
fact is virtually unfeasible.  However, based on 2LT  D--’s  statement
regarding his uncle, the applicant believes his uncle’s act of bravery
should be recognized, if not by the  SS,  then  with  another  fitting
award.  Based on the article he provided, it seems  many  men  in  the
303BG were shortchanged of the medals they  deserved.   The  applicant
also notes the HQ AFPC/DPPPR advisory indicated his uncle is  entitled
to the EAMETO  with  five  Bronze  Stars,  but  his  separation  paper
indicates “1 Battle Star on EAMETO Ribbon.”  The  applicant  questions
which is correct.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response in behalf of the member is
at Exhibit E.

On 1 Nov  05,  a  copy  of  the  26 Oct  05  corrected  HQ  AFPC/DPPPR
evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant,  with  a  cover  letter
explaining the corrections (Exhibit F), for review and response within
30 days.  As of this date, no further response from the applicant  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 error or injustice.  HQ AFPC/DPPPR advised  that  the
member’s records  have  been  administratively  corrected  to  reflect
receipt of the GCM and the POW Medal, as well as his POW  status  from
20 Oct 43 through 21 Jan 45.  Therefore, the issues remaining for  our
consideration pertain to the applicant’s request for the SS  (or  some
other fitting award), the PH 1OLC, the AM with 6th and  7th  OLC,  and
the inclusions of the LOCs for Mission #76  in  his  uncle’s  records.
The applicant asks that his uncle be awarded a second PH (PH 1OLC) for
the eye injury sustained on the 20 Oct 43 mission.  However, according
to the member’s WD AGO 53-55, he was awarded a PH for wounds sustained
on 23 Oct 43, presumably in connection with the downing of his B-17 on
20 Oct 43.  The member’s military records do not reveal award of a  PH
for another injury, and the applicant has  not  shown  why  his  uncle
should receive a second PH for an injury  for  which  he  was  already
decorated.   Neither  the  existing  records   nor   the   applicant’s
submission support awarding his uncle additional AMs beyond the  basic
decoration  already  reflected  in  his  records.   While  2Lt   D--’s
statement was carefully considered, his belief  that  the  member  was
“entitled to something” did not  constitute  a  recommendation  for  a
specific award being  placed  in  official  channels.   The  applicant
and/or his uncle need to provide official  decoration  recommendations
and eyewitness statements for the SS, the AM with 6th and 7th OLC  and
the LOCs (approved by the Army) for Mission  #76.   If  the  applicant
obtained some statement or  document  from  an  individual(s)  in  his
uncle’s chain of command who could confirm that his uncle was, or  was
intended to have been, recommended for a specified decoration for  his
actions on 20 Oct 43 (other than  the  Purple  Heart  he  received  on
23 Oct 43 for his injury), we would be willing to review this case for
possible reconsideration.  Until then, we  have  no  recourse  but  to
agree with  the  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the member  has
not suffered either an error or an injustice warranting corrections to
his record beyond those already administratively implemented.  In view
of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.  However,
our decision should in no way be construed as a  diminishment  of  the
member’s unselfish service during a dangerous period in  our  nation’s
history.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 4 January 2006 under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01738 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letters, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 27 Jun 05 and
                       26 Oct 05 (corrected version).
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Jul 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Nov 05.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair