Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-03040
Original file (BC-2006-03040.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:         DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03040
               INDEX CODE:  107.00

               COUNSEL:  NONE
               HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 APRIL 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished Flying  Cross
(DFC), and additional awards of the Air Medal (AM), possibly five or six.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After his discharge in Sept 1952, he received orders awarding  him  the  7th
and 8th OLC to his AM and a DFC.

In Korea he served as a flying crew chief on a C-47 aircraft and  flew  over
300 missions, of which more than 175 were classified as combat missions.

In support of his request, applicant provided his personal statement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s military records reflect he served on active duty from 8 Dec  48
to 7 Sep 52 in aircraft maintenance and retired from the Air  Force  Reserve
on 22 Mar 89. He served a total of 36 years and 9 months.

Applicant served in Korea from 27 Jun 50 to 16 Aug 52.

Applicant’s AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, Item  10  (Awards),  reflects
the DFC and Air Medal (1OLC).  Applicant’s DD  Form  214,  reflects  he  was
awarded the Korean Service Medal w/2  Bronze  Service  Stars,  Good  Conduct
Medal, Distinguished Unit Citation w/ 1 OLC, and the United Nations  Service
Medal.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR  recommends  approval  of  the  DFC  and  AM  (1OLC)   based   on
documentation found in applicant’s records.   They  disapproved  applicant’s
request for award of any additional oak leaf  clusters  to  the  Air  Medal.
After a thorough review  of  the  applicant’s  military  record,  they  were
unable to find a recommendation for, or  special  orders,  awarding  the  AM
w/7th and 8th OLCs.  The applicant did  not  provide  any  documentation  to
support his claim for additional OLCs.

DPPPR was able to locate an AF Form 7 and Record Review Rip showing the  DFC
and AM (1OLC); however, that office was unable to locate a copy of  the  DFC
certificate, special order, or a decoration recommendation.

The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 Nov 06, a copy of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  the  applicant’s  request  for
additional Air Medals.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence  of  record,
we find that insufficient evidence has been presented to  support  award  of
additional Air Medals.  In the absence of such evidence we  agree  with  the
opinion  and  recommendation  from  the  Air   Force   office   of   primary
responsibility that the applicant  did  not  provide  any  documentation  to
support his claim with regards to additional Air Medals.  Therefore, in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting this portion of the applicant’s request.

4.  We note the Air Force has indicated there is sufficient evidence in  his
records to support award of the Distinguished Flying Cross and will  correct
his DD Form 214 to reflect this award.

_________________________________________________________________


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  Docket  Number     BC-2006-
03040 in Executive Session on 5 December 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
03040 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 23 Oct 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Nov 06.




                                             MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                             Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01125

    Original file (BC-2006-01125.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence to support he completed 29 missions required, at that time, for award of the DFC or that he met any other eligibility criteria for award of the DFC. The applicant’s records currently reflect he was awarded the AM twice and is entitled to the AM w/1OLC. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 24 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. Michael...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02807

    Original file (BC-2005-02807.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has earned the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), the Air Medal with six Oak Leaf Clusters, the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Air Force Longevity Service Award, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial and states that the applicant has provided the special orders and letters from former crew members who did receive the AFCM...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03449

    Original file (BC-2005-03449.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03449 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 May 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), and First Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal (AM w/1OLC). A complete copy of the evaluation is at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02188-AM

    Original file (BC-2006-02188-AM.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the facts surrounding his Air Force military service cannot be verified. The complete DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a photocopy of the Air Force Exceptional civilian award. We note the memorandum decreed by General “Hap Arnold” in regard to the routine awarding of the Air Medal; therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02188

    Original file (BC-2006-02188.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, the facts surrounding his Air Force military service cannot be verified. The complete DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provided a photocopy of the Air Force Exceptional civilian award. We note the memorandum decreed by General “Hap Arnold” in regard to the routine awarding of the Air Medal; therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02900

    Original file (BC-2005-02900.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His record only shows six awards of the Air Medal when he was awarded seven. They do not find any evidence the applicant was recommended for or awarded the Soldiers Medal, DFC (1OLC), or the AM (6OLC). We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01247

    Original file (BC-2006-01247.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01247 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXX (DECEASED) COUNSEL: DR ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 OCT 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and awarded the Air Medal (AM) with five Oak Leaf Clusters...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2004-02294

    Original file (bc-2004-02294.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02396

    Original file (BC-2006-02396.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He agrees with the recommendation of the Air Force, if his citation does not verify his decision was beyond the call of duty neither the AM or DFC is appropriate (Exhibit E). Congressman Shimkus, in a letter dated 18 December 2006, offers his support in the applicant’s request for an upgrade of AM w/4 OLCs (Exhibit F). On 10 January 2007, the Board staff requested the applicant to provide clarification regarding his request for an upgrade of his AM w/OLCs (Exhibit G).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02575

    Original file (BC-2006-02575.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPPR states after a through review of the applicant’s limited military personnel records, they are unable to find evidence that he was recommended for award of the DFC. We note the applicant’s assertion that he is entitled to the DFC for flying over 25 missions; however, we also note the requirements for award of the DFC changed in 1943 from the number of hours or missions completed to an actual recommendation. There is no indication in his records that he was recommended for, or awarded,...