RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05328
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His WD AGO Form 53-98, Military Record and Report of Separation Certificate of Service, Item 29, Decorations and Citations, should have included the DFC. His recommendation for the DFC describing his qualifying missions was penciled in on a separate sheet awaiting an investigation by his flight officer and group commander. The delayed investigation was completed on 8 August 1945, causing the WD AGO Form 53-98 not to be finalized prior to his departure on 11 August 1945.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records were located in the area most heavily damaged in the fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973. Documents provided by the applicant indicate that on 12 March 1944 he entered the Army of the United States as a commissioned officer and served on active duty until he was honorably discharged on 4 January 1946.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating official documentation verifying the applicant was recommended for and awarded the DFC could not be located. The DFC is awarded to any officer or enlisted person of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguished themselves in actual combat in support of operations by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight subsequent to 11 November 1918. Due to a fire at NPRC, there is limited information in the applicants official military personnel records. However, if the applicant wishes to pursue the award of the DFC, retroactive recommendations for retirees/veterans beyond the 2 year time limitation must be submitted in accordance with 10 USC § 1130. The law allows for the submission of award recommendations without regard to any previously imposed time constraints and requests must be referred to the Secretary of the Air Force by a Member of Congress. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support award recommendations rest with the requester. In order for a request to be reasonably considered the following must be submitted: a signed recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act or achievement; eyewitness statements attesting to the act(s) of outstanding meritorious achievements or service performed, sworn affidavits, certificates, and any other related documentation, and a proposed citation.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
SAF/MRBP recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not furnished his rationale for why he feels he should have been awarded the DFC. As of 2 October 1944, the DFC policy for Seventh Air Force (7th AF) indicated that aerial victories for fighter pilots included destroying five enemy airplanes. The DFC criterion for 7th AF prior to October 1944 was flying 30 combat sorties. Although, the applicant certificate of service reflects his military occupational specialty as a 1055 fighter pilot-single engine, and contains individual flight records, it does not indicate the number of missions, sorties, or an aerial victory. For DFC consideration, the applicant would need to submit a signed statement from someone who had knowledge of the acts or achievement. Specifically, a letter of statement from his flight officer, or someone in the chain of command, explaining why the applicant was not submitted for a DFC in 1945 is needed. In addition, a proposed citation is required, along with a referral by a member of Congress as outlined in 10 USC § 1130.
A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 September 2013 and 9 September 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibits E and F). As of this date, this office has received no 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. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice. While we are not unmindful of the applicants service in the defense of the Nation, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified 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-2012-05328 in Executive Session on 22 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05328 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 13 December 2012.
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 6 September 2013.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 6 September 2013.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 September 2013.
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03329
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03329 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be entitled to the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for missions he flew during World War II (WWII). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The 9-man flight crew he was assigned to flew 35 combat...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04289
Fourth, any criteria set by the War Department are just not applicable to this case. The OER is clearly an official record, and it clearly states that the decedent had been recommended for a DFC. This case is not like others where the applicant seeks the award of a DFC where the only evidence was the applicant's statement that he was told by his commander that he would be recommended for a DFC.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04209
Counsel cites a previous case where the AFBCMR awarded the DFC to an applicant for completion of a minimum of 10 lead or deputy lead combat missions and an OLC to the DFC for every 10 successive lead missions completed (AFBCMR BC-2005-02255). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits B and C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01347
On 8 December 1945, he was relieved from active duty to accept appointment as a first lieutenant, Officers’ Reserve Corps, Army of the United States. DPPPR states that there is no evidence in the decedent’s records of a recommendation for, or award of, the DFC. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the FORMER MEMBER be corrected to show that he was awarded...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2011-04213
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Although his father was recommended for the DFC, which was approved by the squadron through group levels, Fifth Air Force, did not act on the recommendation due to the wars closure. Although the applicant provides signed recommendation, he provides no proposed citation or evidence the recommendation was approved. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03962
DPSI states that the request does not contain the required medical evidence and supporting documentation required for award of the PH. MRBP states the applicants request does not include the required supporting evidence, such as the applicants flight records, crew member logs or eyewitness statements, for award of the DFC. § 1130 clearly states that, Upon request of a member of Congress the Secretary shall make a determination as to the merits of approving the award however, it does...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03719
Per AFM 900-3, Decorations, Service Awards, Unit Awards, Special Badges, Favorable Communications, Certificates, and Special Devices (20 Jan 72), Chapter 3, Paragraph 3-1(3), Only one decoration may be awarded for the same act, achievement or period of service. Further, per AFM 900-3, and AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, criteria for award of the BSM is for Heroic or meritorious achievement or service (not involving aerial flight). The complete MRBP evaluation is at...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03723
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Purple Heart medal. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, no documentation was found to verify award of the Purple Heart Medal. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03654
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03654 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBP recommends upgrading the AM, 5 OLC, to the DFC. We note DPSIDs recommendation to deny...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03117
They state, in part, that based upon the criteria used in 1943 there is no basis for any award. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the Congressman McIntyres office, on behalf of the applicant, via electronic mail (email) on 12 Aug 13 for review and comment within 30 days. Although official documents do reference the co-pilot being wounded, there...