RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03027
INDEX CODE: 107.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded an upgrade from the Air Medal (AM) to the Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His commander recommended him for the DFC and his Congressman has sent
a letter of support to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF).
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided personal
statements, letters of support and other pertinent paperwork.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 2 January 1942. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. He served
for 3 years, 6 months, and 12 days before being honorably discharged
effective 22 July 1945. On 11 May 2004, he requested he be awarded
the DFC. The SAF Personnel Council (SAFPC) considered his request and
denied the DFC but recommended he be awarded the AM for achievement on
28 August 1943. On 13 September 2005, the applicant applied for a one-
time reconsideration of his request to upgrade his AM for a DFC.
SAFPC denied his request for upgrade of the AM to the DFC.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial. DPPPR states the applicant’s
achievement act on 28 August 1943 did not meet the criteria for award
of the DFC. He has not provided any additional documentation to
verify his entitlement to the DFC.
DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states his congressman asked the Secretary of the Air Force
(SAF) why his medal had been downgraded from the DFC to the AM. He
was told he came out on the short end of the vote. He then gave up.
However, recently he talked again with his congressman who asked him
to reapply once more. He has always felt he met the requirement of
“Extraordinary Achievement”. He only hopes the Board will give his
application the most serious thoughts before rendering a decision. He
was a good soldier and this means a lot to him.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. 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 of an
error or injustice. His request to upgrade his AM to a DFC was denied
by SAFPC twice. As he has provided no documentation to show he was
entitled to award of the DFC 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-
2006-03027 in Executive Session on 16 February 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Sep 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 7 Dec 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02989
DPPPR states on 11 February 2006, the applicant’s package was forwarded to the approval authority, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for consideration. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Mar 06. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-02989 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03571
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 of an error or injustice. However, the applicant was unable to provide the necessary documentation to be awarded the DFC. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02396
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03581
The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 Dec 06, for review and comment within 30 days. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded the applicant should be awarded the DFC. We took notice of the complete submission in judging the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03307
The Air Medal (AM) that was awarded to him on 4 November 2002 by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) is not the appropriate decoration for his actions. The control cables were severed, and the aircraft could not be landed safely without the cables controlling the flaps. DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in flight.
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-02299
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 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. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00870
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00870 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). We took note of the documentation provided in support of the applicant’s request for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01051
Further, DPPPR argues to award the applicant the DFC after he was awarded a medal for his actions would be an injustice to all other recipients of the AM awarded for actions similar to those of the applicant. DPPRSP’s letter to the applicant, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant submitted additional documentation, through his congressman, withdrawing his request for the AFC and requested that his AM be upgraded to a DFC. Applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02178
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02178 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 January 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His mission on 26 September 1944, be considered a combat mission and he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July...