RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02396
                       INDEX CODE:  107.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 FEBRUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Medal with the Fourth  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AM  w/4  OLCs)  be
vacated from his records or be  upgraded  to  a  Distinguished  Flying
Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded the AM w/4 OLCs for achievement and not  what  happened
on 15 April 1945.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his AM for  15
April 1945, Letter informing  family  the  applicant  was  missing  in
action (MIA), Clinical Abstract, WD AGO Form S-118, WD AGO Form 53-58,
Citation for the DFC, Applicant’s  Letter  in  March  2006  Air  Force
Magazine and VA decision letter.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Army of the United States (AUS) on 7 January
1944.

The applicant retired on 27 March 1985, in the grade of  colonel.   He
served 23 years, 3 months and 5 days of active duty service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the requested relief be denied.  DPPPR states
the AM w/4 OLCs cannot be upgraded to a DFC without an
official recommendation.   The  DFC  is  awarded  to  any  officer  or
enlisted servicemember of the Armed Forces of the United  States  (US)
who shall have distinguished themselves in actual combat in support of
operations   by   “heroism   or   extraordinary   achievement”   while
participating in an aerial flight.

HQ  AFPC/DPPPR  further  states   a   servicemember   may   submit   a
recommendation for a military decoration 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.

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 did  not
ask for his AM w/4 OLCs to be upgraded to a DFC.  He does not  believe
the citation fits the criteria for award of the AM or DFC within  12th
AF during WWII.

The requirement for submission through a congressional member will  be
taken care of by his congressman.

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).

The applicant in response to the 10 January 2007 letter stated  he  is
requesting the citation for the AM 4 w/OLCs be upgraded.  If
the words of the citation exemplify valor, rather than achievement  or
performance the appropriate award is often a Silver Star (SS)  or  Air
Force Cross (AFC).  Only in rare cases does valor merit the  award  of
the Medal of Honor (MOH)(Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends the applicant’s request be denied.  They state the
documentation currently provided by the applicant does not support  an
upgrade to either a SS or AFC, nor does it meet the current guidelines
for upgrade submission required under the FY 96  NDAA.   They  further
stated the SS is awarded to any servicemember of the Armed  Forces  of
the US who have distinguished themselves for gallantry in action  that
does not warrant the Medal of Honor (MOH) or AFC.  Gallantry in action
means heroism of  high  degrees  including  risk  of  life  and  while
engaging in an action against an enemy of the US or while  engaged  in
military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign  force
or while serving with friendly foreign  forces  engaged  in  an  armed
conflict  against  an  opposing  force  in  which  the  US  is  not  a
belligerent party.

MRBP further state the AFC is awarded to servicemembers of  the  Armed
Forces of the US who have distinguished themselves  for  extraordinary
heroism, not justifying award of  the  MOH.   Extraordinarily  heroism
must include risk of life and while  engaging  in  action  against  an
enemy of the US or while  engaged  in  military  operations  involving
conflict with an opposing foreign force or while serving with friendly
foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing force  in
which the US is not a belligerent party.

A complete copy of SAF/MRBP’s evaluation is attached at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluation and  states
the Board must decide if his remaining in his damaged plane  while  he
assured a successful  mission  completion  meets  the  requirement  of
heroism (Exhibit K).
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.  After thoroughly reviewing
the available personnel records and  documentation  submitted  by  the
applicant, we found no evidence to  verify  he  was  eligible  for  or
recommended for award of the SS or AFC.  Nor, is there  any  available
evidence in the applicant’s records indicating he met the criteria for
the  SS  or  AFC.   Therefore,  we  agree  with   the   opinions   and
recommendations of the offices  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant  has  not
been the victim of  an  error  or  an  injustice.  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-
2006-02396 in Executive Session on 29 March 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                       Ms. Jane B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-02396 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Available Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 3 Nov 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Dec 06, w/atchs
      Exhibit F. Letter, Congressman Shimkus, dated 18 Dec 06.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Jan 07.
      Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jan 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 16 Feb 07.
      Exhibit J. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Feb 07, w/atch.
      Exhibit K. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Feb 07, w/atchs.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair