RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02480
                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIREC:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 FEB 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded one additional oak leaf cluster (OLC) to the  Air  Medal
(AM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While assigned to the Eighth Air Force he was awarded the AM with  one
OLC for 13 combat missions.  However, he did not receive  the  AM  for
the 26 combat missions flown during March through  October  1943  with
the 12th Anti-Sub Squadron.

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 enlisted in  the  Army
on 24 March 1942 as an aviation cadet and completed 10 months  and  20
days of training.  He was honorably discharged on 13 January  1943  to
accept a commission.  He was appointed a second lieutenant,  Army  Air
Corps and entered active duty on 14 January 1943.  He had an  overseas
tour in England from 25 April 1944  through  25  July  1945.   He  was
honorably discharged on 17 January 1946.

His WD AGO 53-55 reflects he was awarded the Air Medal (AM)  with  one
OLC, the European-African Middle Eastern (EAME) Ribbon with two Bronze
Stars (BS) and the American Theater Ribbon with one OLC.

A DD Form 215 dated 25 October 2005 was issued to add the Good Conduct
Medal (GCM) and the World War II Victory Medal to his records.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR states the AM is awarded to  servicemembers  who,  while
serving in any capacity with the Armed Forces of  the  United  States,
subsequent to 8 September 1939, distinguished themselves by heroic  or
meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flights.

HQ AFPC/DPPPR further states that prior to 14 August 1943, the AM  was
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 AM be discontinued.

A thorough review of the applicant’s records does not reveal  that  he
was recommended for award of the contested AM.  HQ  AFPC/DPPPR  cannot
verify the applicant’s eligibility for the AM as he did not provide  a
copy of a certificate or special order, or a decoration recommendation
for  the  AM.   The  applicant  has  not   provided   any   supporting
documentation in support of his request for  the  AM.   HQ  AFPC/DPPPR
further states the applicant may pursue the AM under the provisions of
the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The timeline  for
submitting decorations is two years  from  the  date  of  the  act  or
achievement.  However, this Act waived the timeline.   The  submission
for the award must be written and meet two criteria:  1)  be  made  by
someone other than the servicemember, in the servicemember’s chain  of
command at the time of the incident, and, who had firsthand  knowledge
of  the  acts  or  achievements;  and  2)  be  submitted   through   a
congressional member who can  ask  a  military  service  to  review  a
proposal for a decoration based on the merits of the proposal and  the
award criteria in existence when the event occurred.

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:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states  he  served
during World War II from 24 March 1942 through 17  January  1946.   He
further states he  is  requesting  an  OLC  not  an  additional  medal
(Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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
of the AM; however, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of
the Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis  for  our  decision
that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his  burden  that  he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing
the available personnel records, we found no evidence to verify he was
eligible for or recommended for  the  AM  for  the  missions  he  flew
between March and October 1943 while assigned  to  the  12th  Anti-Sub
Squadron.   Although  the   applicant   has   provided   documentation
indicating he completed  numerous  missions  between  March  1943  and
October 1943, he has failed to establish that he was  recommended  for
an additional oak leaf cluster.  Nor is there any  available  evidence
in the applicant’s records indicating he met the criteria  established
after 14 August 1943 for award of the AM.  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-
2005-02480  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 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 Sep 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 9 Nov 05.




                             JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                             Panel Chair