THIRD
ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03796
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Silver Star (SS) for his actions during a bombing raid to
a strategic target at Hamburg, Germany, on 30 October 1944.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 2 March 2005, the Board considered applicant’s request for the SS and
found no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief requested. On
24 February 2006, the Board reconsidered the application and again found no
basis for relief. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by
the Board, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I.
On 19 October 2007, the applicant requested reconsideration of his appeal
and provided additional documentation. In further support of the appeal,
applicant submits additional statements from the former airplane commander
and the former squadron commander. The applicant’s complete submissions,
with attachments, is at Exhibit J.
On 13 November 2007, the Board reconsidered the applicant’s request and was
not persuaded the evidence presented was sufficient to overcome the
rationale expressed in prior decisions. For an accounting of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier
decision by the Board, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit
K.
By letters dated 23 June and 8 July 2008, and email of 30 June 2008, the
applicant requested reconsideration of his appeal and provided additional
documentation. In further support of the appeal, applicant submits a
Mission Detail Listing for the 30 October 1944 mission. The applicant’s
complete submissions, with attachment, are at Exhibits L through N.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted by the
applicant and the evidence of record, a majority of the Board does do not
believe he has overcome the rationale expressed in the Board’s previous
decision. In this respect, the majority of the Board notes the issue
before this Board is not to ratify the opinions of the officers that have
submitted supporting statements in the applicant’s behalf, but rather to
determine whether or not he has been the victim of an error or injustice as
a result of not being awarded a decoration that he had earned. A majority
of the Board finds that since there is no showing he was officially
recommended at the time and given the presumption of regularity in the
operation of governmental affairs, it is reasonable to conclude that the
facts and circumstances were reviewed at that time and the determination
made that the SS, or any other specific award for those acts, was not
appropriate. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, a majority of the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend
favorable consideration of his request.
________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-03796
in Executive Session on 2 October 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
By majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Ms.
Evans voted to correct the records but does not wish to submit a Minority
Report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit K. Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings, w/atchs.
Exhibit L. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Jun 08, w/atch.
Exhibit M. Electronic Mail, Applicant, dated 30 Jun 08.
Exhibit N. Letters, Applicant, dated 8 Jul 08.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002
Reference your application submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC), AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-03796.
After careful consideration of your application and military records,
the majority of the Board determined that the evidence you presented did
not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The
Secretary's designee accepted the recommendation of the majority and 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.
Sincerely
PHILLIP E. HORTON
Chief Examiner
Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records
Attachment:
SAF/MRB Letter, w/Record
of Proceedings
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
FROM: SAF/MRB
SUBJECT: XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-03796
I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and while I
cannot accept the applicant’s argument that his group commander acted
improperly by not supporting a recommendation to award him the Silver Star
(SS), I do not agree with the recommendation of the majority of the Board
that his request for award of the SS should once again be denied.
In this respect, I note the applicant’s former group commander has
provided an affidavit in which he supports awarding the applicant the SS.
The Board’s majority is somewhat indifferent to this statement because the
applicant was not under his command at the time of the subject mission.
However, I find his statement most compelling and believe that it should be
given great deference. Although he was not the applicant’s group commander
at the time of the subject mission, he had previously served in that
position for over five months, to include “D-Day,” and would have been
intimately familiar with what level of gallantry rose to the level
warranting award of the SS; whereas, his replacement had only been in the
position for two-and-a-half months prior to the mission.
In consideration of the evidence presented in support of this appeal,
I find the applicant has established the existence of an error or injustice
in his records. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, I believe
the interest of justice can best be served by resolving this issue in favor
of this 83-year-old World War II veteran. Therefore, I direct that his
request be approved
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards
Agency
AFBCMR BC-2004-03796
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 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that he was awarded the
Silver Star for gallantry in action on 30 October 1944.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03796-2
In this respect, we note the Silver Star (SS) is awarded for gallantry in action, i.e., heroism in high degree including risk of life, not warranting award of the Medal of Honor (MOH) or the Distinguished Service Cross (DCS). We have thoroughly reviewed the affidavits submitted in support of applicant’s request, and although they attest to his extraordinary leadership and navigational ability in leading the aircraft to the bombing target, they do not persuade us that his actions on 30...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03796
In support of the appeal, applicant submits an affidavit and narrative recommendation for award of the SS from the former group commander indicating that based on the applicant’s actions during the subject mission, he should have been awarded the SS. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2004-03796-6
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 2 March 2005, the Board considered applicant’s request for the SS and found no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief requested. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member Mr. Patrick C....
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02826
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The SAFPC recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that while there is little doubt the applicant demonstrated some extraordinary airmanship, decisive leadership, and heroism on 6 June 1972, for which he was awarded the DFC, the degree of heroism exhibited does not rise to the level required to merit the award of the SS. However, after a careful review and consideration of all factors...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02073
The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel states, among other things, that but for the applicant’s actions on 5 June 1944, the mission’s command pilot would have been in severe shock and unconscious in a matter of minutes and incapable of the aircraft flight maneuvers for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor. Based on the established 8th Air Force policy of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2004-02294
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 | CY2004 | BC-2002-02730a
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02730 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: TOM DRAKE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) and the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). In this respect, we note the Board previously denied his request for award of the DFC based on the absence of evidence that he completed a total...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00386
AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that although the applicant’s records indicate that he completed a total of 35 combat missions and he has submitted a DFC recommendation signed by his former commander, in 1946, General “Hap” Arnold ordered theater commanders not to award the AM or DFC based solely on the number of combat missions completed, but rather for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. Applicant’s records do not indicate he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02293
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Based on the Eighth Air Force established policy of awarding an AM upon the completion of every five heavy bomber missions and since he completed a total of 36 combat missions, he should be awarded two additional AMs. In this respect, we note the applicant completed a total of 36 combat missions while assigned to the Eighth Air Force as a B- 24 airplane commander. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2004-00787
Under the revised policy, the DFC could be awarded for acts of heroism in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for applicant states, among other things, that the requested relief should be favorably considered based on the recommendation of the applicant’s former commanding officer and in view of the established...