ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01255-2
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her deceased fathers records be corrected to reflect the award
of the Air Medal with fourth and fifth Oak Leaf Clusters (AM w/4
& 5OLC).
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
By virtue of an application dated 22 Mar 10, the applicant
requested her father be awarded the Air Medal with fourth and
fifth Oak Leaf Clusters (AM w/4 & 5OLC), Presidential Unit
Citation with two Bronze Stars (PUC w/2BS) and the Good Conduct
Medal (GCM) (administratively corrected). She contended the Air
Force neglected to award these decorations to him upon his
discharge. The Air Force office of primary responsibility was
not able to substantiate the applicants claim to the
aforementioned awards. On 9 Mar 11, the Board considered and
denied the requests. For an accounting of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the applicants case, and the rationale
of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit D (with Exhibits A through C).
In a letter dated 9 Apr 11, the applicant requests
reconsideration of the AM w/4 & 5 OLC based on her belief the
Board erred when making their determination. Specifically, the
Board erred based on a reputed, but in fact never implemented or
imposed, requirement of six missions for an AM OLC versus five.
She offers a supporting affidavit and recommendation from a
senior officer.
In support of her request, the applicant provides a statement of
counsel and copies of a notarized affidavit, a recommendation for
the AM w/4 & 5 OLCs and a report from the 44th Bomb Group
Veterans Association database.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After careful review of the evidence of record and the new
documentation submitted in support of the applicants request for
reconsideration, we do not find the evidence sufficient to
overturn our original decision regarding award of the Air Medal,
4th and 5th Oak Leaf Clusters. The applicants counsel makes
several arguments of why the Boards prior decision is in error
and also unfair due to the precedent established in the awarding
of Air Medals in similar cases. The applicants counsel is
correct that the Board has previously approved award of the Air
Medal in cases similar to the applicant. Nevertheless, this
Board has an abiding responsibility to consider each case brought
before it on the basis of the evidence presented. It would be
inappropriate for the Board to recommend granting relief solely
on the basis it has done so before if the evidence does not
support doing so. Counsel asserts that the Board is incorrect in
stating that the number of missions needed for additional Air
Medals increased from five to six. Counsel also states that
recommendations for additional awards of the Air Medal were
automatic after completion of the required missions. He further
notes that even if a recommendation was required, the applicants
records were destroyed by fire in 1973 and thus one could hardly
expect to find proof the applicant was recommended for two
additional Air Medals based on the completion of 12 additional
missions in the face of such a circumstance. While regrettable
the service members record may have been destroyed due to no
fault of his, the burden of the existence of error or injustice
rests with each individual applicant. Counsel has not provided
evidence that supports his assertion that recommendations for Air
Medals were automatic. Although he provides supporting
statements, we do not find the statements sufficient to conclude
the number of missions required did not change to six.
Additionally, although the number of missions is important, we
consider evidence the applicant was recommended for additional
awards just as important or sufficient evidence that supports
that the service member did not receive the additional awards due
to administrative error or oversight and that he was the victim
of injustice. While we honor the deceased service members
service to the Nation, we still do not find the evidence provided
sufficient to reverse our earlier decision.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC-2010-
01250 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 12, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit D. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Mar 11,
w/Exhibits A through C.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicants Counsel,
dated 9 Apr 11, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01247
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01247 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXX (DECEASED) COUNSEL: DR ASTON HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 OCT 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased husband’s records be corrected to show he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and awarded the Air Medal (AM) with five Oak Leaf Clusters...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-05081
The applicant is under the misconception that as long as the decoration into administrative channels prior to the promotion cutoff date, the approved decorations would be used in the promotion process for that cycle. As such, decorations and promotions are separate processes. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence submitted in support of his appeal, we believe that credible evidence has been provided to show that his six Air Medals (2OLC/3OLC/4OLC/5OLC/6OLC and 7/OLC) were placed into...
AF | BCMR | CY1997 | BC 1997 01084 1
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1997-01084 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Medal, Fourth and Fifth Oak Leaf Clusters (AM, 4th and 5th OLCs) and the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). For an accounting of the facts and circumstances...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04209
Counsel cites a previous case where the AFBCMR awarded the DFC to an applicant for completion of a minimum of 10 lead or deputy lead combat missions and an OLC to the DFC for every 10 successive lead missions completed (AFBCMR BC-2005-02255). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits B and C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04879
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) that in addition to the administrative correction that will be made to document the applicants award of the AM with four (4) OLCs, his records also be corrected by this Board to reflect award of the AM (5th OLC). However, in addition to amending the special order, we believe a more appropriate remedy in this case would be to also...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02299
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02299 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: ROBERT L. ASTON XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded an additional oak leaf cluster to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and two additional oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal (AM). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00219
In 1943, 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. In this respect, the available evidence of record reflects the applicant completed a total of 35 combat missions while assigned to the Eighth Air Force as a B-17 pilot. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Member of Congress, dated 23 Mar 09, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01534
None of the applicant’s Air Medals were awarded for a specified number of combat flight missions; they were awarded by the 15th Air Force for specific dates as follows: - Basic Air Medal (AM), awarded for the period 17 August-3 September 1944, by General Order (GO) 2789, dated 3 October 1944. Even though the applicant has not substantiated that he was ever recommended for award of the Fifth and Sixth Oak Leaf Clusters to the Air Medal, after a thorough review of his submission, the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00510
He was never awarded an additional AM for his 26th through 30th combat missions In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the former 67th Deputy Squadron Navigator recommending him for award of the DFC and an additional oak leaf cluster to the AM, and a list of his combat missions. The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July 1926 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02533A
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E. In a letter, dated 26 February 2003, the applicant’s Congressman requests reconsideration of his application and provides additional documentation. Although a copy of the orders/citation to accompany award of the AM, 4 OLC, are unavailable, in his letter of 19 October 2000, the applicant states that he received this...