RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02181
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 JANUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect additional oak leaf clusters  (OLCs)  to
his approved Air Medal (AM) w/ 2 OLCs and any additional unit citations  for
his service in World War II.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  On 27 Mar 06, The Department of the Army  Military  Awards
Branch,  informed  Congressman  Boustany’s  office  they  had  verified  the
applicant’s entitlement to the AM 2nd OLC and forwarded the  AM  Certificate
and an engraved medal set to him.  They also  verified  his  entitlement  to
the World  War  II  Victory  Medal  and  the  American  Campaign  Medal  and
forwarded these medals to him.

In applicant’s rebuttal, he requests that eighteen  additional  missions  be
added to his service  records  and  Military  Occupational  Specialty  (MOS)
number be listed on his discharge papers.  It  also  appears  he  is  asking
that his MOS be changed from an Aerial Gunner to a Bombardier.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records were never correctly completed.  The individual he  reported  to
threw away his flight records because he did not believe  that  an  enlisted
man  actually  flew  as  a  bombardier  at  a  time  when  the  majority  of
bombardiers were officers.

His flight records clearly show how many air  medals  he  should  have  been
awarded.

In support of his request, applicant provided copies of  his  personnel  and
flight records, newspaper articles, and a letter from his Congressman.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed in the  1973  fire
at the National Personnel Records Center.

The following information was extracted from  applicant’s  submission.   His
Enlisted Record of Report and Separation, WD AGO  53-55,  reveals  applicant
was inducted into the Army of the United States (Air Corps), on 29  Oct  43,
and entered active service on 19  Nov  43  as  an  aerial  gunner.   He  was
credited with the following battles and campaigns:  Northern  Apennines,  Po
Valley, Normandy, Rhineland, and Air  Combat  Balkans.   The  applicant  was
awarded 5 Bronze Service Stars and the Air Medal with 2 Oak  Leaf  Clusters.
The applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of staff sergeant on  22
Oct 45, for the Convenience of the Government (Demobilization).

On 15 Apr 05, the US Army verified applicant’s  entitlement  to  one  Silver
Service Star to the European-African-Middle  Eastern  Campaign  Medal  (EAME
w/1 SSS) for his support in the European Theater.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR  recommends  denial.   The  applicant   requires   a   decoration
recommendation submitted by someone within  his  chain  of  command;  or  by
someone  who  had  firsthand   knowledge   of   his   acts/achievement   for
consideration.  The applicant did not have this  in  his  military  records,
nor  did  he  submit  a  decoration  recommendation  with  this  claim;  and
therefore cannot be considered for approval.

Early during World War II, the Air Medal (AM) and other flying  awards  were
awarded based on the number of combat  missions  flown.   In  1943,  General
Henry “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not  to  award  the  AM  based
solely on the number of combat flight missions  completed.   General  Arnold
believed this so-called “score card” basis lessened the value of the AM  and
other flying awards and created a negative morale factor.  To  correct  this
situation, he  decided  the  “score-card”  basis  for  awarding  the  AM  be
discontinued.  Under the revised policy, the AM could be  awarded  for  acts
of  heroism  in   combat   flight   or   extraordinary   achievement   while
participating in aerial flight.

The DPPPR complete evaluation, with attachment is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responds thru his Congressman stating the basis  for  his  request
was not that he was requesting additional Oak Leaf Clusters  based  on  more
than 400 bombing missions  flown  by  his  unit,  but  rather  that  he  has
documentation to show that he flew an additional eighteen missions  that  he
has not received Oak Leaf Clusters for.

If the revised policy on Air Medals took place in 1943, why did  he  receive
an AM in 1945, upon completion of his first five missions and then  two  Oak
Leaf Clusters for an additional 10 missions?  Also, according  to  paperwork
from Headquarters, 97th Bombardment Group, dated March 1945, it  shows  that
853 Air Medals and Oak Leaf Clusters were awarded.  If  the  revised  policy
was being used it seems  hard  to  imagine  that  853  AMs  with  OLCs  were
awarded.

The complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 regarding applicant’s request for  award  of
additional Oak Leaf Clusters to the Air Medal.  After a thorough  review  of
the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  complete  submission,  to  include
copies of his flight records, we are not persuaded he should be awarded  Oak
Leaf Clusters  for  an  additional  18  missions.   The  records  appear  to
indicate he was awarded the appropriate  amount  of  Air  Medals  under  the
criteria being followed by 15th Air Force at the time.  The 15th  Air  Force
awarded the initial Air Medal for the first five completed  combat  missions
and each subsequent Air  Medal  for  each  additional  ten  combat  missions
completed thereafter.  The applicant’s initial Air Medal, dated 29  Jan  45,
with inclusive dates of 14 Dec 44 – 8 Jan 45, covered his first five  combat
missions; his Air Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster, dated 16 Mar  45,  with
inclusive dates of 20 Jan 45 - 28 Feb 45, covered 11  combat  missions;  and
his Air Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster, dated 10 Apr 45, with  inclusive
dates of 4 Mar 45 – 5 Apr 45, covered 12 combat missions.   It  appears  his
records reflect six missions for which  the  applicant  may  not  have  been
recognized; however, following the criteria discussed above; he  would  have
needed to complete four more  missions  to  be  awarded  an  additional  Air
Medal.  Our determination in this matter  in  no  way  diminishes  the  high
regard we have  for  the  applicant’s  service.   However,  we  believe  the
applicant was appropriately recognized for his  meritorious  achievement  by
the officials in charge at the time.

4.  In addition to the above, we find  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice concerning the applicant’s Military Occupational Specialty  (MOS).
 After  a  thorough  review  of  the  documentation  provided,  we  are  not
persuaded that his MOS of “Aerial Gunner” should be changed to  “Bombardier”
or that the MOS designation should be changed on his discharge  papers.   We
find the evidence of record insufficient  to  substantiate  the  applicant’s
contentions in this area.  Therefore, based on the  foregoing,  and  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-2006-
02181 in Executive Session on 28 September 2006,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 27 Jul 06.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Congressman Boustany, 9 Aug 06,
                 w/atchs.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair