ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 


IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01785 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 


________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be awarded the Air Medal (AM) and the Purple Heart (PH) medal 
due to his service during World War II. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

RESUME OF CASE: 

 

By virtue of an application dated 27 Mar 10, the applicant 
requested he be awarded the AM, PH medal, Presidential Unit 
Citation (PUC), American Campaign Medal (ACM), Euro-African 
Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (EAMECM), Prisoner of War (POW) 
Medal, and World War II Victory Medal (WWIIVM). He contended 
the Air Force neglected to award these decorations to him upon 
his discharge. The Air Force office of primary responsibility 
was able to substantiate the applicant’s claims to the ACM, 
EAMECM, POW Medal, and the WWIIVM and corrected his records 
administratively. On 26 Oct 10, the Board considered and denied 
his remaining requests, indicating the applicant had failed to 
meet his burden of proof as he had not provided sufficient 
documentary evidence of his entitlement to the AM, PUC, or PH 
Medal. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s case, and the rationale of the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at 
Exhibit E (with Exhibits A through D). 

 

In a letter dated 5 Feb 11, the applicant requests 
reconsideration of his requests for the AM and PH Medal based on 
his belief the Board erred when making their determination the 
applicant had not provided sufficient evidence. Specifically, 
the Board erred by giving credence to information reflected in 
his military personnel records indicating he had only flown 
three combat missions in the face of the evidence he provided 
showing he had actually flown eight combat missions. The Board 
inappropriately discounted this evidence, reports from the 44th 
Bomb Group’s 8th Air Force database, based on the false belief 
the data was derived from an unofficial source. On the 
contrary, these reports are derived from the 44th Bomb Group 
Veterans Association database which is an online library 
preservation site of actual Eighth Air Force records from WWII. 
Furthermore, the applicant argues the noticeable omission of any 


information related to his status as a POW is further evidence 
his records were erroneous and incomplete and should not have 
been given credence over the evidence provided. As for his 
claim related to the PH Medal, the applicant argues that he was 
injured when his plane crashed and therefore should have been 
awarded the PH Medal. He argues that two of the crew of his 
aircraft passed away from hypothermia and were awarded the PH 
Medal. As such, he should be awarded the PH Medal as he too 
suffered the effects of hypothermia and other injuries, but 
because he was fortunate enough to survive, he was not awarded 
the PH Medal. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a statement of 
counsel and copies of additional reports from the 44th Bomb 
Group Veterans Association web site and three supporting 
statements. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. After again reviewing this application and the evidence 
provided in support of his appeal, we remain unconvinced the 
applicant has been a victim of an error or injustice. We have 
previously determined the applicant had not met his burden of 
proof in demonstrating he was the victim of an error or 
injustice warranting award of the AM and PH Medal. While the 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted, his latest submission 
has not persuaded us otherwise. Counsel argues the Board erred 
when denying the applicant’s request for the AM in the face of 
convincing evidence in the form of reports from the 44th Bomb 
Group Veterans Association database, indicating that this 
database is a library repository derived from actual WWII 
records during the matter under review. Nevertheless, we do not 
find these reports, in and of themselves, sufficient to convince 
us to recommend granting the requested relief. In this respect, 
we note these reports are not actual records, but are apparently 
derived from manual data inputs which Counsel contends were 
based on the original records. While we have no reason to 
question Counsel’s integrity in the matter, we also have no way 
of ascertaining with any certainty the fidelity of the 
underlying data from which these reports are generated. We also 
note Counsel’s contention the Board previously relied on these 
reports in granting several similar cases; however, 
notwithstanding our decisions in those cases, we do not believe 
it appropriate to recommend granting relief based on a derived 
source, especially when the actual records apparently still 
exist. In this respect, we note the supporting statement from 
the former Commandant of the Army War College and Counsel’s own 
statement indicating the records from which the data base was 
built were donated to the Army War College for historical 


preservation. Therefore, in the face of the revelation these 
records exist and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no basis to recommend granting the applicant’s request for 
award of the AM. 

 

2. As for his request related to the PH Medal, we find that it 
does not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board as 
the applicant has provided no new relevant evidence; and 
reconsideration is authorized only where newly discovered 
relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the 
application was originally submitted. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or 
injustice; and 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-2010-01785 in Executive Session on 6 Dec 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 19 Nov 10, 

 w/Exhibits A through D. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, 

 dated 5 Feb 11, w/atchs. 
 

 Panel Chair