RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-03620 

COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) or appropriate 
Air Force decoration for his act of valor he performed while 
serving as a turret gunner and aerial engineer aboard a B-17 
bomber during World War II (WWII). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

While on a bombing mission in mid-June 1943, he saved his 
aircraft and crew by manually releasing a bomb he found lying on 
the bomb bay doors that had fallen off the rack and dislodged 
from a safety device. The incident was either not reported or 
not recognized at the time; however, after reading of similar 
incidents wherein individuals were awarded medals for saving 
their plane and crew by releasing hung, lodged, and/or fused 
bombs, his family convinced him to pursue correction of his 
records based on an injustice. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and copies of a witness statement; discharge document; 
pictures of his aircraft and crew; list of missions; letters to 
congressional members; and articles of two other service members 
who received medals for similar actions. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Army Air Corps who served 
on active duty from 16 November 1941 to 26 May 1945. 

 

The applicant’s records are believed to have been destroyed by 
the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. 
Louis, Missouri; therefore, the available facts are extracted 
from the limited service records provided by the applicant. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states due to the lack of 
sufficient documentation and information per the 1966 National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), they must recommend disapproval 
of the applicant’s request. 

 

DPSIDR indicates that any recommendation for decorations is 
submitted on an individual basis and is a voluntary act on the 
part of the recommending official. Under the 1996 NDAA, veterans 
may be recommended for a decoration by complying with the 
following procedures; however, the written decoration 
recommendation must meet two criteria: 1) be made by someone, 
other than the member himself, in the chain of command at the 
time of the incident, and who has firsthand knowledge of the acts 
or achievement; 2) be submitted through a congressional member 
who can ask a military service to review a proposal for a 
decoration based on the merits of the proposal and the award 
criteria in existence when the event occurred. In addition, the 
recommendation must include the name of the decoration, reason 
for the 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 (at the time of the act or service) 
are required. Any statements from fellow comrades, eyewitness 
statements attesting to the act, sworn affidavits, and other 
documentation substantiating the recommendation should be 
included in the package. 

 

The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In response to the Air Force advisory opinion, the applicant 
submits statements from two members of his chain of command and a 
list of crew members. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
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 an error or an injustice. The 
applicant asserts that his action during a bombing mission in 
1943 deserves recognition by award of an appropriate Air Force 
decoration. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides 
accounts of others being recognized for similar events. He also 
provides statements from two officers that state they were in his 
chain of command at the time and one of the officers recommends 
the applicant for award of the DFC. After considering the 
complete evidence of record, to include the applicant’s 
submission, we find it insufficient to conclude that the failure 
to recognize the applicant’s actions in 1943 by award of a 
decoration makes him the victim of error or injustice. In coming 
to our decision, we note that although he has provided letters 
from officers that state they were in his chain of command, 
neither the applicant or these officers have offered any 
explanation of why the applicant was not recognized at the time 
of his actions. It is also not clear from the evidence if either 
of these officers bore the responsibility of recommending the 
applicant for recognition at the time or if the authority and 
responsibility rested with others in the unit to which the 
applicant was assigned. While we do not question that the 
applicant’s actions as recounted rise to a level that could 
justify a decoration, the bigger question for this board is 
whether the lack of recognition for the applicant’s actions give 
rise to an error or injustice. Regrettably, we cannot conclude, 
based on the evidence that it does. Although there may have 
been others decorated for actions similar to the applicant’s, 
there are simply too many missing facts to use this as a basis 
for similarly recognizing the applicant. The personal sacrifice 
the applicant endured for our country is noted; however, based on 
the evidence before us, we must recommend that the requested 
relief be denied. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-03620 in Executive Session on 28 June 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 


 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03620: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 25 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 30 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair