RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00920
INDEX CODE: 107.00
XXXXXXX. COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 JUL 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the end of his tour in Thailand, he was submitted for the award of
the DFC; however, it was disapproved because he had only flown 60
combat missions. He believes the number of required missions flown
should have been compared with other flight surgeons and not with the
navigators and pilots.
In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal
statement, recommendation for decoration, two separate copies of his
Air Medal certificates and his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was commissioned in the Air Force 6 Jul 1995. On 31 Jul
1985, he retired in the grade of Colonel. He served 20 years and 25
days of active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to any
officer or enlisted person of the Armed Forces of the United States
who shall have distinguished her/himself in actual combat in support
of operations by heroism or extraordinary achievement while
participating in an aerial flight subsequent to 11 Nov 1918. The
requirements for award of the DFC changed dramatically in the middle
of World War II. Early in 1943, while visiting the various combat
theaters, General Hap Arnold expressed his concern with the large
number of DFCs being awarded. Under policy existing prior to 14 Aug
1943, the DFC was awarded on the basis of a number of hours or
missions completed. General Arnold believed this so-called score card
basis lessened the value of the DFC and created a negative morale
factor. To correct this situation, it was decided by General Arnold
that the “score card” basis for awarding the DFC be discontinued.
In addition, his request was resubmitted for a one-time
reconsideration of his previously denied DFC due to the number of
missions (60) he had flown. On 19 Dec 2006, the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council (SAF/PC) disapproved the applicant’s one-time
reconsideration request for award of the DFC.
The complete DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluation’s were forwarded to the applicant
on 9 Mar 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response (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. After a thorough review of the
available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, the Board
is not persuaded his records should be corrected to show he was
awarded the (DFC). The Board took notice of the applicant's complete
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board
agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for their
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and 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-
2006-00920 in Executive Session on 12 Apr 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 2006, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 26 Feb 2007.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Mar 2007.
KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR
1535 Command Dr, EE Wing, 3rd Flr
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
Reference your application, AFBCMR BC-2006-00920, submitted
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC).
After careful consideration of your application and military
records, the Board determined that the evidence you presented did
not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice.
Accordingly, the Board denied your application.
You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant
evidence for consideration by the Board. In the absence of such
additional evidence, a further review of your application is not
possible.
BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR
GREGORY E.
JOHNSON
Chief
Examiner
Air Force Board
for Correction
of Military
Records
Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00357
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00357 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal (AM). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00538
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00538 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded three additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00543
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00543 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). Although applicant has provided documentation indicating he completed 30 combat missions,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00359
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for applicant states, among other things, in view of the established Eighth Air Force policy in effect during the period in question, the member was due the AM for his completion of five combat missions. Although the member’s records were destroyed by fire in 1973, the Air Force office of primary responsibility has indicated that based on his time in service during World War...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01524
During World War II, the Far East Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 500 combat hours and an AM was awarded upon the completion of 100 combat hours. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for the DFC be denied and states, in part, that the applicant did not provide a letter of recommendation to verify his entitlement to the DFC. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00700
In this respect, we note that counsel has failed to provide evidence that the member was ever recommended for a BSM. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 May 1944, he was awarded the Air Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Navigator on B-17 airplanes on many bombardment...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00358
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel states that, among other things, that the requested relief should be favorably considered based on the recommendation of the member’s former commander and in view of the established Eighth Air Force policy in effect during the period in question. In this respect, we note the member completed a total of 12 combat missions while...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01247
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00994
After a complete review of all three official military records they were able to confirm the two crewmembers received the DFC for a number of bombardment missions flown over Europe in June 1944, and the applicant receiving the Air Medal w/3 OLC in June 1944. He requested the DFC through his congressman’s office in June 1996 and was informed a written recommendation was required for award of the DFC. The Board also notes, the applicant received the Air Medal w/3 OLC during the time both...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02052
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02052 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded two additional oak leaf cluster to the Distinguished Flying Cross and an additional oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal. In 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM...