RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02510
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive flight pay for two missions flown in 1942.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In 1942, he flew two flights as a radio-operator/gunner on a
bomber but didnt receive flight pay. On his second mission, on
1 Sep 42, the plane was shot down, he was captured and held as a
Prisoner of War (POW) in Italy. The widow of the copilot of his
plane stated that both her husband and the planes pilot were
paid flight pay while flying in combat in the same airplane.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________ ______________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered active duty in the Army on
28 Jun 41 and served as a radio operator/aerial gunner on board
a B-25 Bomber during World War II.
On 1 Sep 42, on his second combat flight, his plane was shot
down, he was captured, and held as a POW in Italy.
On 14 Sep 43, he escaped from the POW Camp, evaded recapture,
and eventually made his way back to an Allied unit.
The applicant was credited with flying two combat missions for a
combined total of one and a half hours of combat flying time,
and a total of 50 flying hours in a combat type airplane.
The applicants Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) was
stored at the National Personnel Records Center (NRPC) on
12 Jul 73, in an area that suffered damage from a fire that
destroyed the major portion of records of Army military
personnel for the period 1912 through 1959. While a
reconstituted file was compiled for the applicant, it contains
limited service data.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DFAS-IN does not make a recommendation in this case because
insufficient evidence is available to make a determination. The
documents destroyed in the fire would have contained the
entitlements paid the applicant during the time in service, to
include payment of Fly Pay. However, Fly Pay Executive Order
(EO) 4610, dated 10 Mar 27, modified the requirements for Fly
Pay of ten flights by specifying that the ten flights had to
total at least three hours. These performance prerequisites for
flight pay entitlement continued in basically the same form
until the adoption of the Career Compensation Act of 1949. This
office has no way to confirm that the requirement for ten
flights was fulfilled.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAPP 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 3 Aug 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office
(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 error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, the Board notes the applicant did not provide
sufficient documentation to establish he completed ten flights,
with a total flying time of at least three hours, cited by DFAS
as the minimum required to qualify to receive flight pay. The
personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is
noted and the recommendation to deny the requested relief in no
way diminishes the high regard we have for his outstanding
service. However, in view of the above and 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; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; 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-2012-02510 in Executive Session on 20 Feb 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jun 12, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, DFAS-IN, dated 30 Jul 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Aug 12.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02556
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02556 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and his Air Medal (AM) be updated to reflect 28 missions flown during World War II. AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00700
In this respect, we note that counsel has failed to provide evidence that the member was ever recommended for a BSM. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 29 May 1944, he was awarded the Air Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, for extraordinary achievement, while serving as a Navigator on B-17 airplanes on many bombardment...
While receiving treatment, he was informed that he was to receive the PH Medal for service-connected injuries at the hands of the enemy. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 2 AFBCMR 96-03428 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that he is extremely disappointed in DPPPRA' s recommendation to deny his application. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Feb 98.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03520
He was captured that same day and remained in POW status until 7 May 1945. DPPPR’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPFC has verified his status as a WWII POW and has requested his record be corrected to reflect such. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
There is no indication in his records, and he did not provide any documentation, showing he was recommended for the DFC or an oak leaf cluster to his AM. The operative word in [the former group commander’s] statement that the Chief apparently overlooked is “Before” [emphasis applicant’s]. Therefore, the criteria for that command was not completion of a specified number of missions (35) before being recommended for the DFC and completing a tour.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05531
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, noting that the applicant has not exhausted all avenues of administrative relief. The complete SAF/PC evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a rebuttal response, a friend of the applicant submitted additional documents including, copies of 339th Bomb Squadron's Record...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03898
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial, noting there are no special order, recommendation, proposed citation, or any other evidence provided by the applicant or located within his limited official military personnel file to support that he was submitted for the AM. All military decorations require a recommendation from a recommending official within the member’s chain of command at the time of the act or...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02123
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02123 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The DFC is awarded to any officer or enlisted person of the Armed Forces of the United States who shall have distinguished her or himself in actual combat in support of operations...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01378
___________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02073
The SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel states, among other things, that but for the applicant’s actions on 5 June 1944, the mission’s command pilot would have been in severe shock and unconscious in a matter of minutes and incapable of the aircraft flight maneuvers for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor. Based on the established 8th Air Force policy of...