RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02645 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her father’s records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the 
Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The daughter of the former member states that two members of her 
father’s flight crew have been awarded the DFC years after 
separating from the Air Force. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant thru her Congressman 
provides copies of her father’s WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted 
Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge; a honorable 
discharge certificate, a commendation letter, letters from a 
member of Congress and the Senate, a newspaper article, a privacy 
release form, and a letter from the family physician. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire 
at the National Personnel Records Center; therefore, only a 
limited record exists. 

 

The available records reflect he served on active duty in the 
Army Air Corps from 4 Oct 43 to 28 Oct 45, and served in the 
European Theater from 14 Aug 44 to 16 Apr 45. At the time of his 
separation, his records reflect he was serving as an aerial 
gunner. 

 

The DFC was established by Congress on 2 Jul 26 and is awarded 
for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in 
aerial flight. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in 
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at 
Exhibit B. 

 


DPSIDRA has verified the applicant’s entitlement to the World War 
II Victory Medal (WWIIVM) and will administratively correct his 
record to reflect this award. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. DPSIDRA states the next of kin 
(NOK) has not provided a recommendation from someone within the 
applicant’s chain of command who has firsthand knowledge of the 
incident, a proposed citation, chain of command endorsement(s), 
or eyewitness statement(s). Furthermore, there is no date or 
specific act/achievement for which the NOK is requesting the DFC 
for. 

 

DPSIDRA states the newspaper story the NOK provided shows that a 
World War II pilot received award of the DFC 55 years after the 
fact; however, the story states the decoration elements 
(certificate, citation, and special order) were located within 
that service member’s official military record. The elements 
were apparently placed in that service members record but he was 
unaware the decoration was awarded to him; it was not a new 
entitlement recently approved. 

 

The DFC may be awarded to any person who, after 6 Apr 17, while 
serving in any capacity with the US Armed Forces, distinguished 
themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while 
participating in aerial flight. Heroism or achievement must be 
entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine. 
The DFC is not awarded for sustained operational activities and 
flights. 

 

The timeline for submitting decorations to include the DFC is two 
years from the date of the act or achievement. However, under 
the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 
(Section 526), which was enacted into law on 10 Feb 96, this 
timeline has now been waived. 

 

Before a request for an award can be considered, certain 
processing procedures must be followed. 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 member’s accomplishments. The 
applicant cannot recommend himself for award of the DFC. If 
someone has firsthand knowledge of the applicant’s 
accomplishments and achievements, she may act as the recommending 
official. The recommendation must include the name of the 
decoration (i.e. DFC), 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 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 DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 30 Sep 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a 
response has not been received (Exhibit C). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 and noting the applicant’s 
contentions, we are not persuaded the records should be corrected 
to reflect award of the DFC. While we recognize the member’s 
extraordinary accomplishments in the defense of our Nation during 
wartime, we note there is no official documentation to indicate he 
was recommended for the DFC by anyone in his chain of command. 
Therefore, entitlement to the DFC cannot be verified. We note the 
news article provided as evidence that two members of her father’s 
crew have been awarded the DFC years after the fact. However, 
having no evidence to connect her father and the two service 
members mentioned in the news article, we are not inclined to 
recommend approval of the DFC. Should the applicant obtain 
evidence that could substantiate her father was also a part of the 
same crew, we would reconsider her request. The personal 
sacrifice the member endured for his country is noted, and our 
recommendation to deny the requested relief in no way diminishes 
the high regard we have for his service; however, based on the 
totality of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded the 
applicant has met her burden of establishing an error or injustice 
has occurred. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Aside 
from the administrative correction pertaining to his entitlement 
to the WWIIVM, we find no basis to recommend granting further 
relief in this case. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


 

 

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 Docket Number 
BC-2011-02645 in Executive Session on 5 Jan 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2011-02645 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 9 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Chair