RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02044 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His uncle be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor (MoH) and 
the Air Medal (AM) with two oak leaf clusters (OLC). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. On 15 June 1944, after being hit by German anti-aircraft 
fire, his deceased uncle heroically sacrificed his own life in 
order to prevent his aircraft from crash-landing into the 
populated areas of Dreux, France during World War II (WWII). 

 

2. His uncle’s recently revealed extraordinary heroism during 
the Normandy Campaign of WWII is not detailed in the awards he 
originally received; Air Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 
w/1OLC) and a Purple Heart (PH). 

 

3. His uncle was buried as “Unknown X-121” by the French 
citizens; his identity and actions were unknown to authorities 
for quite some time. 

 

4. Several sources of information suggest his uncle flew a 
combat mission on 14 June 1944. However, the 14 June 1944 
sortie was not logged into his flight records. If he had been 
properly credited with an additional combat sortie, he might 
have been eligible for another OLC to his Air Medal. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides figures, 
references, primary source documents, extracts from “Unknown X-
121” report; a signed card from the Military Order of the Purple 
Heart; a historical timeline summarizing key events in the 
European Theater of Operations and a note regarding an error in 
the number of combat hours and sorties credited to his uncle. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 30 July 1942, the former member enlisted in the Air Corps. 

 


On 2 November 1943, he accepted a commission with the Army. 

 

On 5 February 1943, he was commissioned in the Army Air Corps. 
He served 2 years, 7 months and 13 days of total active service 
until he was killed in action (KIA) on 15 June 1944. 

 

The MoH is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a 
person who distinguishes himself/herself by conspicuous 
gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond 
the call of duty, as a member of the Air Force: 1) While engaged 
in an action against an enemy of the U.S., 2) While engaged in 
military operation involving conflict with an opposing foreign 
force, or 3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged 
in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which 
the U.S. is not a belligerent party. 

 

The AM is awarded to any person who, while serving in any 
capacity with the armed forces of the U.S., subsequent to 
8 September 1939, distinguishes himself or herself by heroic or 
meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial flight. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the MoH. MRBP states following a 
thorough review of the MoH submission and after lengthy 
discussion, the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB) determined 
the statements made by witnesses flying on the same mission and 
at the time of the incident do not definitively corroborate the 
statements of the eyewitnesses on the ground and there was not 
clear and convincing evidence of a valorous act that rises to 
the level of the MoH. The AFDB members believed that much of 
the evidence provided was based on hearsay and supposition. 
Further, there is no evidence from any radio contacts that his 
uncle intentionally guided his aircraft away from the city of 
Dreux or was actually in control of the aircraft. 

 

The AFDB also discussed the merits of his act in consideration 
of a lesser decoration such as the Distinguished Flying Cross or 
the AM. The AFDB determined that due to the lack of conclusive 
verification such as a radio call or verification that he was 
controlling his P-38, these decorations were not appropriate 
based on criteria for decorations at the time of this event. 

 

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
award his uncle the MoH and AM w/2OLCs. DPSIDRA states the 
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) indicates the 


applicant’s uncle received award of the PH and the AM with one 
Oak Leaf Cluster. Without his uncle’s record or a copy of the 
decoration elements, they are unable to verify if he received the 
AM w/1OLC or any other decoration for his actions on 
15 January 1944. Additionally, since his uncle’s record is 
unavailable, they are unable to verify if the award of the AM 
w/1OLC was actually made. 

 

The applicant has not provided any official documentation 
substantiating award of the AM w/1OLC was made in order for his 
uncle to be eligible for possible entitlement to an additional 
OLC to the AM. 

 

Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted his request in 
regard to the AM w/2OLC in accordance with (IAW) the 
1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Rules for 
consideration as the newly provided information does not 
substantiate entitlement. 

 

The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AF/A3O-AT agrees with the recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDRA. A3O-
AT states the documents provided by the applicant confirm his 
uncle did fly 19 combat sorties from 4 May 1944 to 15 June 1945. 

 

The complete A3O-AT evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 2 and 9 Aug 11 for review and comment with 15 days 
(Exhibit F and G). 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 an error or injustice. It should 
be noted that this Board does not have the authority to award 
the MOH. However, if the evidence warrants, we can make a 
recommendation to the approving authority for consideration of 
the MoH. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and 
applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded his uncle 


should be recommended for award of the MOH. We note the Air 
Force Decorations Board (AFDB) properly considered his uncle for 
award of the MOH and discussed his uncle’s act in consideration 
of a lesser decoration; however, based on a lack of clear and 
convincing evidence, the AFDB recommended disapproval. As such, 
we believe SAF/MRBP has adequately addressed the applicant’s 
contentions and we find no basis to recommend the applicant’s 
uncle for award of the MOH. Regarding the applicant’s request 
that his uncle be awarded the Air Medal with two Oak Leaf 
Clusters (AM w/2OLCs), based on the NPRC records it appears his 
uncle was awarded the AM w/1OLC; however, as previously stated 
by DPSIDRA, the applicant has not provided any official 
documentation to substantiate the award of the AM w/1OLC was 
actually made in order for his uncle to be eligible for possible 
entitlement to an additional OLC. Moreover, the applicant has 
not submitted his request in accordance with (IAW) the 1996 NDAA 
Rules for consideration. Therefore, we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDRA and adopt the rationale 
expressed as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed 
to sustain his burden that his uncle has suffered either an 
error or an injustice. The personal sacrifice his uncle endured 
for his country is noted and our decision in no way diminishes 
the high regard we have for his service; however, insufficient 
documentary evidence has been presented to warrant recommending 
him for the AM w/2 OLC. Should the applicant secure copies of 
the AM decoration elements and submit his request IAW with the 
NDAA rules, we would be willing to reconsider his request. In 
the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETREMINES 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-
2010-02044 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-02044 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Available Military Records. 

 Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP, Letter, dated 24 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIDRA, Letter, dated 25 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. HQ USAF/A3O-AT, Letter, undated. 

 Exhibit F. SAF/MRBC, Letter, 2 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit G. SAF/MRBC, Letter, 9 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair