RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00958 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished 
Flying Cross (DFC). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

After the completion of a combat tour of missions, i.e., 25 
missions, the DFC was awarded. Due to a shortage of men, the 
length of a tour was extended to 30 missions. He flew 28 
missions; however, he was only credited with completion of 26 
missions. The pilot recommended him and the crew for the DFC. 
Due to confusion, the paperwork may have been misplaced. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provided personal 
statements, newspaper articles, and a letter from the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served on active duty from 9 Aug 43 to 10 Oct 45. 
His WD AGO Form 100, Army of the United States, Separation 
Qualification Record, indicates he flew 26 missions on B-24’s 
with the 8th Air Force in the European Theatre as an aerial 
gunner during the period 11 Aug 44 to 28 May 45 and was awarded 
the Air Medal, with three Oak Leaf Clusters (AM, 3 OLC). 

 

The DFC was established by Congress on 2 Jul 26 and is awarded 
for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in 
aerial flight. During the period in question both heroism and 
extraordinary achievement had to be entirely distinctive 
involving operations that were not routine. 

 

During World War II, the 8th Air Force had an established policy 
whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of tour of combat 
duty, and an Air Medal (AM) was awarded upon the completion of 
every five heavy bomber missions. In 1942, the length of a tour 
was 25 combat missions. In 1944, the tour length was increased 


to 35 combat missions, and the number of combat missions 
required for award of an additional AM was increased to six. In 
1946, the policy for automatically awarding the DFC and AM based 
solely on the number of missions completed was discontinued, and 
submissions were subsequently required to include a narrative 
recommendation justifying the award. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states that under existing 
policy prior to 14 Aug 43, the DFC was awarded on the basis of 
the number of hours or missions completed. General Hap Arnold 
believed that this so-called “score card” basis lessened the 
value of the DFC and created a negative morale factor. To 
correct the situation, it was decided by General Arnold that the 
“score card” basis for awarding the DCF to be discontinued. 

 

On 14 Aug 43, General Arnold sent a memorandum to all Theater 
Commanders which revised the policy for award of the DFC. Under 
the revised policy, the DFC could be awarded for acts of heroism 
in combat flight or extraordinary achievement while 
participating in aerial flight. To justify award of the DFC for 
heroism, the heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action in 
the face of great danger above and beyond the line of duty while 
participating in aerial flight. To warrant an award for 
extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight, 
the results accomplished must be as exceptional and outstanding 
as to clearly set a veteran apart from his comrades who have not 
been so recognized. 

 

Under the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act 
(NDAA), Section 526, which was enacted into law on 10 Feb 96, 
the original or reconstructed written award recommendation is 
required for the recommended individual. The recommendation 
must be made by someone, other than the member himself, 
preferably the commander or supervisor at the time of the act or 
achievement, with firsthand knowledge of the member’s 
accomplishments. If someone has firsthand knowledge of the 
applicant’s accomplishments or achievements, he may act as the 
recommending official. The recommendation must include the name 
of the decoration (i.e., DFC), reason for recognition (heroism, 
achievement, or meritorious service), inclusive dates of the 
act, and a narrative description of the act. The recommending 
official must sign the recommendation. Also, a proposed 
citation is required and any chain of command endorsements are 
encouraged. Any statements from fellow comrades, eyewitness 
statements attesting to the act, sworn affidavits, and other 
documentation substantiating the recommendation should also be 
included with the package. 

 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 15 May 09 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. Although the 
records reflect the applicant was credited with completing 26 
combat missions, there are insufficient records to indicate 
whether the missions were flown before the 8th Air Force criteria 
was changed to 35 combat missions. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-
2009-00958 in Executive Session on 5 October 2009, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 , Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 07, w/atchs 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 14 Apr 09. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 09. 

 Exhibit E. Two Letters of Support, dated 22 Sep 09 and 

 undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair