RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02299
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
      xxxxxxxxxxx      COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 FEB 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Medal (AM) he was awarded for flying a P-47, Thunderbolt,  over  the
North Atlantic Ocean  to  the  United  Kingdom  from  26 July  1943  through
11 August 1943, be upgraded to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

Examiner’s Note:

Applicant originally requested the AMs awarded  to  the  other  P-47  pilots
also be upgraded to the DFC; however, on 28 August 2007, he was advised  the
governing statute provides  that  no  correction  may  be  made  unless  the
claimant or his or her heir or legal  representative  files  a  request  for
correction of the individual’s records.  In view of this, it  was  suggested
the other P-47 pilots submit an application and apply on  their  own  behalf
to request correction of their records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes an injustice occurred in awarding the same medal to  the  pilots
of distinctively different aircraft for the same  act.   The  AM  narratives
for both flights were identical; however he believes  the  DFC  should  have
been awarded to the  P-47  pilots  because  the  P-47  was  a  single-engine
aircraft, was most at risk, and the flight was historic since it turned  out
to be the first, last, and only flight of a United  States  military  single
(reciprocating) engine fighter to cross any ocean  for  combat  application,
while the P-38,  Lightning,  was  a  twin-engine  aircraft  and  capable  of
maintaining flight with one engine.  Upgrading the AM to the  DFC  would  be
appropriate and justified, in that the P-47 pilots were all  volunteers  who
realized that engine failure on this route would result  in  almost  certain
death in the freezing waters of the  North  Atlantic.   The  flight  was  an
extraordinary achievement, and remains to this  day  as  a  one  of  a  kind
flight.  This makes the  P-47  flight  exceptional  and  outstanding  as  to
clearly set it apart from the  commonplace  or  routine  and  therefore,  he
believes the P-47 flight meets all the requirements for the DFC.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a  copy  of  War  Department
General Order #12, excerpts from the  History  of  the  2nd  Ferrying  Group
detailing the historic flight of the P-38s and P-47s, two letters  from  the
Air Force History Office, Criteria for the DFC, a short history  of  medals,
a Recommendation for Award of the DFC from a member of his former  chain  of
command, a sample DFC for the entire crew, a notarized letter, a copy  of  a
letter to the current Vice Chief of  Staff  from  a  former  Vice  Chief  of
Staff, stating in part, the P-38, having two engines could  maintain  flight
on one engine in the event one engine failed; whereas, the P-47 in the  same
circumstance over the long expanses of near freezing  water  had  the  North
Atlantic as the inevitable destination.  He further states  the  achievement
was greater for the P-47 pilots and the DFC was the proper award for all  P-
47 pilots of the flight.  Applicant also provides a  copy  of  AFA  Magazine
Excerpt, copy of SAF/MRBP’s response to the former  Vice  Chief  of  Staff’s
letter, correspondence from his member  of  Congress,  and  a  copy  of  his
letter to the DoD Hotline, with their response.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Air Corps  on
23 October 1942 and served as a pilot with the 47th Troop Carrier  Squadron,
313th Troop Carrier Group.  During the period 26 July to 11 August 1943,  he
was one of the nine P-47 pilots that  flew  in  the  first  flight  of  P-47
aircraft over the North Atlantic route of the Air Transport Command  to  the
United  Kingdom,  for  which  they  were  awarded  the  AM  for  meritorious
achievement.  The same orders awarding the  applicant  and  the  other  P-47
pilots the AM also awarded the AM to the P-38 pilots of the three  different
flights that had crossed the North Atlantic during the previous  year.   The
orders also indicated that each officer volunteered to  act  as  pilot  with
the full realization that engine failure  on  this  route  would  result  in
almost certain death in the freezing waters of the North Atlantic.

He was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel and was placed on  the
Temporary Disability Retired  List  (TDRL)  on  25 January  1973,  where  he
remained until his permanent retirement on  28  April  1974.   He  served  a
total of 28 years and 11 months of active duty service.

His report of separation reflects award of the Air  Medal,  with  three  Oak
Leaf Clusters, the  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal,  the  National  Defense
Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star (w/1 BSS),  the  Vietnam  Service
Medal w/6 BSS, the Republic of  Vietnam  Campaign  Medal  with  Device,  the
World War Victory Medal and the  European  African  Middle  Eastern  Service
Medal.

The DFC was established by Congress on  2 July  1926,  and  is  awarded  for
heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in  aerial  flight.
The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary  action
above and beyond the call of duty.

The AM is awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement while  participating
in aerial flight.

On 10 February 1996, the Fiscal Year  1996  National  Defense  Authorization
Act (NDAA) lifted the two-year time limitation for  submitting  decorations.
The  NDAA  provided  two  specific   instructions:   1)   that   a   written
recommendation be provided by someone, other than the member, in  the  chain
of command at the time, who has firsthand  knowledge;  and  2)  that  it  be
submitted through a member of Congress who can ask the  military  to  review
the decoration based on the criteria in existence when the event occurred.

In a letter to SAF/LLI, dated 6 June 2005, applicant  requested  the  AM  be
upgraded to the DFC and provided  supporting  documentation,  to  include  a
recommendation from a  former  member  of  his  chain  of  command.   On  19
December 2005, SAF/LLI advised  the  applicant  that  his  case  lacked  the
required 1996 NDAA documentation.

In a letter, dated 11 April 2006, to the current  Vice  Chief  of  Staff,  a
former Vice Chief of Staff requested the applicant’s request to upgrade  the
AM be reconsidered, indicating the DFC was the more  appropriate  decoration
for the P-47 pilots to have received.  In response, on 1 May 2006,  SAF/MRBP
advised him that his inquiry was referred to their office  since  they  have
primary staff responsibility for high-level awards  and  decorations  within
the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and provided  him  instructions
for submitting the request under the provisions of the 1996 NDAA.

In a letter to the Department of Defense (DoD) Hotline, dated 10 June  2006,
the applicant summarized his “negotiations” with SAF/LLI over the past  two-
plus  years,  identified  numerous  controversial  listed  requirements  for
submission under the 1996 NDAA, and requested that  his  case  be  reopened,
acknowledged, and a response to the identified discrepancies  and  omissions
be provided.

In an  application  to  the  AFBCMR,  dated  25  July  2006,  the  applicant
requested the AM be upgraded to  the  DFC,  and  provided  documentation  in
support of his request.

On 16 November 2006, the Board considered  applicant’s  request  to  upgrade
the AM to the DFC.  The  Board  found  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice to warrant favorable consideration  and  denied  his  application.
On 8 January 2007, he was advised of the Board’s decision and his  right  to
request reconsideration.

On 30 June 2007, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary  of  the
Air Force Inspector General (SAF/IGQ) in which he voiced his  concerns  with
the AFBCMR’s failure  to  provide  any  relevant  evidence  to  support  its
decision and its failure to present any of the relevant evidence in  support
of approval of the application.  In view  of  the  applicant’s  concerns,  a
determination was made to grant de novo  consideration  of  the  applicant’s
case.

On 17 July 2007, SAF/IGQ notified the applicant that they did not  recognize
any deliberate wrongdoing on the part of  AFPC/DPPPR,  AFBCMR,  SAF/LLI  and
SAF/MRBR.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in  part,  after
a thorough review of the applicant’s military record,  they  are  unable  to
find evidence that the applicant was recommended for  or  awarded  the  DFC.
In addition, the applicant  did  not  provide  supporting  documentation  to
support his claim, such as a copy of a DFC certificate, special order, or  a
decoration  recommendation.   On  different  occasions  applicant  has  been
provided the 1996 NDAA  rules  for  submitting  decorations;  however,  each
request has lacked the required NDAA documentation.

The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

Examiner’s Note:

Despite the applicant’s complaints concerning the OPR’s lack of  an  opinion
as to the merits of the basic principle involved in his  case,  i.e.,  award
of the same medal to the pilots of the two disparate flights and failure  to
provide a reason justifying their  denial  recommendation,  a  decision  was
made not to obtain a new opinon since the Board would have  the  benefit  of
reviewing the applicant’s rebuttal thereto.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisory opinion presents  a  confusing  description  as  to  what  they
perceive as being the case for medal upgrade.

The last sentence in the paragraph listed as  the  “Basis  for  Request”  is
misleading,  since  his  request   clearly   limited   the   medal   upgrade
specifically for  the  nine  P-47  pilots  involved  in  this  trans-oceanic
flight.

Reference is made under “Background” that this refers to the  award  of  the
AM to the P-38 pilots.  No mention is made of the fact that paragraph #4  of
this same General Order #12, awards the AM to the P-47 pilots for the  exact
same act.  A thorough understanding of this fact is critical to this  matter
since the primary basis of the claimed injustice  is  that  both  groups  of
pilots were awarded the AM by the same awarding authority at the same  time,
in the same General Order.  These identical awards are unexplainable,  since
the citations for both awards were clearly based on the possible loss of  an
engine over the ocean.

The “Facts” paragraph is confusing as well as erroneous.  He  never  made  a
claim that he had been recommended for, or awarded, the DFC.   Hence,  there
is no  supporting  documentation.”   He  has  provided  numerous  supporting
documents in regards to this request for  correction  of  military  records.
He  has  applied  to  SAF/LLI  through  Congressional  channels  under   the
provisions of the NDAA of 1996, Section 526.  He  also  petitioned  the  DoD
Hotline to require SAF/LLI to reopen his case after it was closed  based  on
a  perceived  lack  of  required  documentation.    Both   of   the   listed
requirements referenced in paragraph “F”  were  fully  complied  with.   The
recommendation for the medal upgrade to  a  DFC  for  the  P-47  pilots  was
submitted by a former member of his chain of command  at  the  time  of  the
incident, who had first hand knowledge of the act, in a letter dated 27  May
2005.  This letter was submitted  through  his  Congressman  to  SAF/LLI  on
6 June  2005,  but  was  never   acknowledged   nor   responded   to.    All
correspondence   and   supporting   documents   were    submitted    through
Congressional channels as required by NDAA 1996 Section 526.

He concludes by stating, it is depressingly disconcerting  when  the  office
of primary responsibility (OPR) for this  matter,  unequivocally  recommends
disapproval of the request without offering  as  much  as  a  single  cogent
reason in  support  of  justifying  or  substantiating  this  decision.   In
addition AFPC/DPPPR expresses no opinion as  to  the  merits  of  the  basic
principle involved by the award of the same medal to the pilots of  the  two
disparate flights.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 error or injustice to warrant upgrading  the  AM  to  the  DFC.
After thoroughly reviewing the complete record of evidence as  well  as  the
additional contentions and complaints made to SAF/IGQ we are  not  persuaded
the AM should be upgraded to a DFC.  We  note  the  primary  basis  for  the
applicant’s request is his belief that it  is  an  injustice  to  award  the
pilots that flew the P-47 the same medal as those that completed  a  similar
mission in the P-38.  The applicant also contends that the DFC is  warranted
on the basis of the P-47 flight being an  extraordinary  achievement,  which
remains a one of a  kind  flight,  and,  among  other  things,  due  to  the
precedent set by President Coolidge in presenting  the  DFC  to  fliers  who
completed a good will flight to South America.  Absent  in  the  applicant’s
submission, however, in our  view,  is  any  supporting  evidence  that  the
awarding authority erred in their  determination  that  the  Air  Medal  was
appropriate recognition for the P-47 flight, rather than the DFC.  While  we
recognize that the passage of time has made it all  but  impossible  to  get
supporting documentation from those actually involved at the time,  we  must
point-out that we accord great deference  to  the  decisions  of  commanding
officers and in the absence of evidence  that  shows  their  decisions  were
arbitrary and capricious or unjust are loathe  to  overturn  them.  We  note
that during the time of these historic flights, the Commanding  General  was
intimately familiar with the aircraft involved and in the most  advantageous
position to render a decision on the appropriate level of recognition  based
on his first hand knowledge of all of the factors involved.  The  fact  that
both groups of pilots were awarded the AM by the same awarding authority  at
the same time, in the same general order, is not evidence of an error or  an
injustice.  To the contrary, it can be viewed as a strong argument that  the
same awarding authority reviewed the achievement of both  groups  of  pilots
assigned under his command and determined the AM was  the  appropriate  form
of recognition for both.  We note the view of a former Air Force Vice  Chief
of Staff that the AM awarded for the P-47 flights should be upgraded to  the
DFC.  While respecting the General’s opinion, we do not  believe  it  should
override that of the commanding officer involved.  We are not  unmindful  or
unappreciative of the applicant’s service to our Nation, and we realize  the
extremely dangerous circumstances and great risks that the  pilots  of  both
aircraft faced in support of our Nation; however, based on the  totality  of
the evidence presented, we are not persuaded the decision to  award  the  AM
to both groups of  pilots  was  in  error  or  unjust.   Moreover,  assuming
arguendo, that we accept the premise the P-47 flight  was  more  significant
or dangerous, and that it was inappropriate to base the same award for  both
aircraft on the possible loss of an engine over the ocean,  this  does  not,
in and of itself,  clearly  establish  the  P-47  pilots  should  have  been
awarded the DFC, rather than the AM.  In fact, in the absence of very clear-
cut guidance, we believe it would be inappropriate for this Board  to  weigh
the value of one groups’s achievement  against  another.   Our  decision  is
based solely on whether the applicant has met his burden of establishing  he
was the victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   In  our  view  he  has  not.
Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of  persuasive  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 Docket  Number  BC-20065-02299
in Executive Session on 11 September 2007, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, Member
                       Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence concerning  Docket  Number  BC-2006-02299
was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 06, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Member's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memo, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 18 Aug 06.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 06.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Aug 06.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jun 07, w/atchs.




                                  WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                  Panel Chair