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 missions 
during their tour of duty. After their tour was concluded the 
pilot stated that he would recommend the entire crew for the 
DFC. He never received notification and assumed the paperwork 
was lost after the war. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to his WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report 
of Separation – Honorable Discharge, the applicant served on 
active duty from 5 Aug 1942 to 4 Sep 1945 in the Army Air Force, 
as a Radio Operator Mechanic Gunner and was awarded a total of 
7 Air Medals (AMs). From 1 Jul 1944 to 7 Feb 1945 he was 
assigned to the 322nd Bombardment Squadron, 91st Bombardment 
Group, 8th Air Force. His campaigns/battles include Normandy 
Northern France, Rhineland Air Offensive Europe Air Combat, and 
Air Combat Balkans. 

 

During World War II, the 8th Air Force had an established policy 
whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of tour of combat 
duty, and an AM was awarded upon the completion of every five 
heavy bomber missions. In 1942, the length of a tour was the 
completion of 25 combat missions. In 1944, the tour length was 
increased to 35 combat missions, and the number of combat 
missions required for award of an additional AM was increased to 
six. In 1946, the policy of automatically awarding the DFC and 
AM based solely on the number of missions completed was 
discontinued; thereafter, requiring the submission of written 
narrative recommendations. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 


the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, stating, in part that they were 
unable to locate a special order or any other documentation 
verifying the applicant’s award of the DFC. However, DPSID 
determined the Good Conduct Medal, American Campaign Medal and 
WWII Victory Medal should have been awarded during his service 
and were not reflected in his records. DPSID states that 
retroactive awards for retirees/veterans beyond the 2-year time 
limitation must be submitted in accordance with Title 10, 
Section 1130, United States Code (10 USC § 1130). Upon the 
Board’s final decision, administrative correction of his 
official military personnel record will be completed by 
AFPC/DPSOY. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
B. 

 

SAF/MRBP recommends denial. MRBP states that there is a lack of 
evidence of his extraordinary achievement during WWII. 

 

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterated his original contention and believes he 
has submitted enough evidence to substantiate his claim. His 
flight records make him eligible for the DFC under the original 
qualification. Between 1943 and 1945, the DFC was awarded for 
flying 25 missions. A review of his crew’s flight records will 
reveal they flew 35 missions, which is well above the criteria 
for the DFC. He is 91 years old and proud of his service with 
the Army Air Corps during WWII and would like the DFC as a 
legacy of his service. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. We note the OPR’s comments 
concerning the requirements of Title 10, United States Code, 
Section 1130 (10 USC § 1130), enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 
1996 National Defense Authorization Act. However, we do not 
agree that such avenues must be first exhausted prior to seeking 


relief under the provisions of 10 USC § 1552. As previously 
noted by this Board in decisions concerning this issue, 10 USC § 
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…” – it does not require that an 
applicant must do so prior to submitting a request under the 
provisions of 10 USC § 1552. Moreover, we find their 
interpretation of 10 USC § 1130 contradicts the very intent of 
Congress in establishing service correction boards 65 years ago, 
i.e., to remove their required involvement and avoid the 
continued use of private relief bills, in order to affect such 
corrections to military records. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a 
thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we 
believe that relief is warranted. In this respect, we note that 
during the contested period, 8th Air Force had an established 
policy whereby an AM was awarded upon the completion of every 
6 combat missions and a DFC was awarded upon the completion of a 
combat tour of duty, i.e., 35 missions, rather than an 
additional AM for the final 6 combat missions. While the 
applicant’s records do not reflect the total number of combat 
missions he completed during his tour, his records do indicate 
that he was awarded a total of 7 Air Medals during the contested 
period. In view of this and noting the 8th Air Force decoration 
policy in effect at the time, we find it reasonable to assume 
the applicant completed at least 35 combat missions in order to 
meet the criteria for an end of combat tour DFC. Therefore, we 
recommend his records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 1 Feb 
1945, he was awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement, 
while serving as a B-17 Radio Operator, Mechanic and Gunner on 
many bombardment missions over enemy occupied Continental 
Europe. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2012-03329 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 2013, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

All members voted to correct the record as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Oct 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 11 Mar 2013. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 2013. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Mar 2013, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair