Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00003
Original file (BC-2010-00003.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00003 

 INDEX CODE: 107.00 

  COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His record be corrected to show that he was awarded: 

 

 a. The Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). 

 

 b. The Air Medal (AM) with five Oak Leaf Clusters (OLC). 

 

 c. The African-Middle-Eastern Campaign Medal with three 
Bronze Stars. (Administratively corrected) 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He flew 30 combat missions. He received one AM for each of the 
five missions. He never received any battle stars. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a copy of his United States Honorable Discharge 
Certificate, WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of 
Separation Honorable Discharge and a letter from the Department 
of the Army Review Boards Agency. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 1 June 1942. He 
was honorably discharged on 4 June 1945 in the grade of staff 
sergeant. 

 

According to the applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55, filed in his 
master personnel record, he was awarded the AM w/4 OLC, the Air 
Force Good Conduct Medal and the Purple Heart. 

  


On 29 March 2010, AFPC/DPSIDR corrected the applicant’s records 
to reflect he was entitled to the American Campaign Medal (ACM), 
the European-African-Middle-Eastern Campaign Medal, with three 
Bronze Stars and the World War II Victory Medal. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states there are no special 
order, recommendations, proposed citation, or any other evidence 
provided by the applicant or located within his official record 
to support his submission for the award of the DFC and the AM w/5 
OLCs based on the number of missions flown. 

 

Under the FY96 NDAA, Section 526, 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 of achievement, with firsthand knowledge 
of the member’s accomplishments. If someone has firsthand 
knowledge of the applicant’s accomplishments and achievements, he 
may act as the recommending official. The recommendation must 
include the name of the decoration, 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 be included with the package. 

 

The complete 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 14 May 2010 for review and response within 30 days. However, 
as of this date, this office has received no response (D). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded 
the requested relief should be granted. We do not find the 
evidence provided sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility. Should the applicant provide further evidence or 
a recommendation for the awards, we would be inclined to 
reconsider his application. While we are not unmindful or 
unappreciative of the applicant’s service to our Nation, based on 
the evidence provided, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
requested relief. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no 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-2010-00003 in Executive Session on 28 September 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

 Member 

Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 24 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 10. 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01949

    Original file (BC-2005-01949.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states upon completion of his last mission on 9 September 1944 only officers were awarded the DFC. The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 July 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. With respect to the issue of the DFC, the Board finds no supporting documentation in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00958

    Original file (BC-2009-00958.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00958

    Original file (BC 2009 00958.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02487

    Original file (BC-2010-02487.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02533

    Original file (BC-2002-02533.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the case of World War II decorations, 3 May 51 was established as the cut-off date for submission of recommendations for decorations for acts or achievements during this time period. The applicant’s records showed that he completed only 14 flights, which led to award of two Air Medals for completion of five missions for each Air Medal, and shot down two enemy aircraft, which led to award of two more Air Medals. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00870

    Original file (BC-2006-00870.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-02780

    Original file (BC-2004-02780.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received $100.00 at the time of his discharge but never received the additional $200.00. He did not receive the additional AM, nor did he receive the medal the crew officers recommended him for a deed up and beyond the call of duty. The applicant did not provide any documentation to support award of the AM or DFC.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03175

    Original file (BC-2005-03175.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03175 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 APR 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His father be awarded the Air Medal (AM) Silver Oak Leaf Cluster (SOLC) and the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for completing 14 lead crew missions with the 755th Squadron. We took...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01378

    Original file (BC-2010-01378.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by providing copies of his Individual Flight Record (IFR) that reflects “33” versus “29” missions. We find no evidence the applicant was ever recommended for award of the DFC. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01378 in Executive Session on 19 Jan 11,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02480

    Original file (BC-2005-02480.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 served during World War II from 24 March 1942 through 17 January 1946. He further states he is requesting an OLC not an additional medal (Exhibit E). After thoroughly reviewing the available personnel records, we found no evidence to verify he...