RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01885
     						 COUNSEL: NONE
	 					HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His records be corrected to show award of the Distinguished 
Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have received the DFC for sustained operational 
activities during World War II.

He completed 25 bomber missions with distinction and met the 
criteria for award of the DFC based on the Air Force Historical 
Research Agency (AFHRA) document, “Distinguished Flying Cross 
and Air Medal Criteria in the Army Air Forces in World War II.”  

On his 29th mission, the aircraft he was in crashed and his back 
was broken.  He received the Purple Heart (PH) for the injuries 
incurred.  It was his understanding at the time that 30 missions 
were required for the DFC so he never pursued the DFC especially 
since there was a lot of inconsistency in award criteria for the 
DFC during the war.

In support of the request the applicant provides a news article 
and paper he authored.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired on 1 Jan 1974.

He was a co-pilot of a B-24 with the 858th Bombardment Squadron, 
492nd Bombardment Group, 2nd Air Division, Eighth Air Force.  

He served on active duty for 30 years, 10 months and 17 days.

?
The DFC may be awarded to any persons who after 6 Apr 1917 while 
serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces 
distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement 
while participating in aerial flight.  The performance of the 
act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and 
beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary achievement must 
have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and 
outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from comrades 
or from other persons in similar circumstances.  Awards will be 
made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary 
achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained 
operational activities against an armed enemy.    

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends disapproval.  There is no official 
documentation in the applicant’s record to verify recommendation 
for award of the DFC.  While the applicant states he completed 
25 bomber missions with distinction, the Army Assistant, Chief 
of Air Staff for Plans dispatched guidance on behalf of the 
commanding General, Army Air Forces on 24 Jun 1944, stating that 
the DFC is prohibited from being awarded on a “mechanical basis” 
and that each award should be worthy of the act performed.  The 
applicant has not provided a proposed citation, inclusive period 
of the act/achievement, or a recommendation from someone, 
preferably who has firsthand knowledge of the applicant’s 
act/achievement.  

Additionally, this request is untimely, memories have faded, and 
records are no longer available to substantiate information.  
The applicant has not provided justification or supporting 
documentation that reflects he was eligible for award of the DFC 
nor did the applicant provide evidence of an error or injustice.  
To grant relief would be contrary to the eligibility criteria 
established by the War Department, the Department of Defense and 
the Secretary of the Air Force.

At the conclusion of the Board, DPSID will administratively 
correct the applicant’s records to show award of the Meritorious 
Service Medal (MSM), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with four 
Bronze Service Stars and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross 
(RVNGC) with Palm.

The complete DPSID advisory, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFHRA/RSA recommends disapproval.  The applicant’s assumption 
that the DFC was awarded after 30 combat missions is incorrect.  
The 2nd Air Division, of which the veteran was a member, expected 
its crewmembers to complete 35 missions before being considered 
a graduate of an operational tour.  In order to recognize the 
crewmembers with appropriate awards, the paperwork process was 
to begin after a crewmember completed 30 missions so that the 
award usually a DFC for sustained operational performance would 
be available for presentation to the individual prior to leaving 
the crewmember’s station for home or for other duties as 
assigned.  This is why, after crashing on his 29th combat 
mission, the veteran was not recognized with a DFC.  Evidently, 
his 492nd Bombardment Group commander held to the 26 Feb       
1945 2nd Air Division directive that potential awardees had to 
complete 30 combat missions before an award submission.  The 
veteran did not complete the 30 combat missions, therefore, 
there was no DFC award submission made.  With six more combat 
missions to go before completing his combat tour, and the war 
ending before he could rejoin his unit for flying duties, it is 
apparent that his organization made the decision not to submit 
him for the DFC.  After 57 years, RSA cannot second guess his 
unit commander’s decision.     

The complete RSA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 Aug 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  To date, a response has not been received.   

_________________________________________________________________

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, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force Offices of Primary 
Responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  His personal sacrifice and unselfish 
service to his country is noted and our decision in no way 
lessens our regard for his service; however, without sufficient 
documentation to substantiate award of the DFC, we are unable to 
verify his entitlement to the award.  Therefore, 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; 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-2013-01885 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
         , Member
         , Member
  
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 2012 [sic], w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Military Service Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jun 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFHRA/RSA, dated 3 Jul 2013, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013, w/atch.  
    



                                    
                                   Panel Chair