RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:					DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00244
		
 							COUNSEL:  NONE

 							HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His father be awarded the following awards:

	Good Conduct Medal (GCM); 

	Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His father served 11 years in the military honorably and faithfully 
without disciplinary infractions or court-martial offenses.

He flew 68 combat missions and supported Utah Beach on D-Day which had 
200 casualties and a landing of 23,250 troops.  On the third day of the 
invasion, his father successfully landed his B-26 on the cliffs of 
Normandy on a temporary field avoiding a crash and saving his crew.

He has pieced the accounts together from his father’s files and stories 
told by fellow pilots.  He wants his father’s complete legacy and 
distinction to be known to his grandchildren and great grandchildren.

His father would have been awarded the two medals but the administrative 
staff was stretched too thin with so many millions of service people at 
the time.  It was an oversight.  

The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider the 
applicant’s untimely requests as his father never talked about his 
experiences.  He found the legacy in the files stored away.  A book he 
read about World War II (WWII) said most pilots who flew over 
25 missions received the DFC, his father flew 68 missions.

In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his 
father’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the 
United States; WD AGO Form 55, Honorable Discharge Certificate; WD-AGO 
Form 53-98, Military Record and Report of Separation Certificate of 
Service, and various other documents associated with his requests.
  
In a letter dated 4 Jun 14, the applicant states his father’s record 
will bear out his claim that he flew 68 combat missions.  A pilot who 
flew with his father told him that he was given credit for 72 missions 
and his father had flown more missions than him.  He has the “Achtung 
Minen” sign his father took from the Normandy cliff during the emergency 
landing.  
 
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The decedent’s Enlisted Record reflects he enlisted in the U.S. Army on 
28 May 42 and was discharged on 30 Sep 43.  He was credited with one 
year, four months and three days of service.  His record reflects that 
he was recommended for the GCM.  

The decedent’s WD AGO Form 53-98 reflects he was a member of the Army 
Air Corps from 1 Oct 43 to 19 Apr 46.  

According to the decedent’s DD Form 214, he served on active duty in the 
Air Force from 31 Jul 46 to 3 Aug 54.  

The GCM is awarded to enlisted members who honorably completed three 
continuous years of active military service subsequent to 26 Aug 40, and 
who are recommended by their commanding officers for exemplary behavior, 
efficiency and fidelity.  During wartime, the GCM may be awarded on 
completion of one year of continuous service rather than three.

The DFC may be awarded to any persons who after 6 Apr 17 while serving 
in any capacity with the U.S. 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 denial of the applicant’s request for award of the 
GCM.  The GCM can only be awarded to enlisted personnel who meet the 
criteria for the award.  The decedent was an officer; therefore, he is 
ineligible for award of the GCM.  

DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC.  
There is no evidence in the decedent’s record, nor did the Next of Kin 
(NOK) present any to support award of the DFC; therefore, there is 
insufficient documentation to reasonably consider the request.  

Furthermore, the revised Policy for Award of the DFC 14 August 1943 
memorandum to theater commanders states in order to justify an award of 
the DFC for heroism, the heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action 
in the face of great danger above and beyond the line of duty while 
participating in aerial flight.  To warrant an award of the DFC for 
extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight, the 
results accomplished must be so exceptional and outstanding as to 
clearly set him apart from his comrades who have not been so recognized.  
Under the policy stated above, no award of the DFC will be made on the 
basis of hours or missions.

The basis for the NOK’s request is not a specific act of heroism or 
extraordinary achievement but based on the number of missions.  
Nonetheless, should the Board believe the merits of the case and 
overlook the lack of timeliness of the submission, the NOK will need to 
submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the 
act/achievement, preferably from someone within the decedent’s chain of 
command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation with 
inclusive dates and a summary of his single act of heroism or 
extraordinary achievement and eyewitness statements in order to 
reasonably consider the request.  To grant relief would be contrary to 
the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations 
and Awards, Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff.  

A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFHRA/RS recommends approval for award of the GCM.  The authority for 
award of the GCM was announced by Executive Order and published in 
Circular Number 188, War Department, 5 Sep 42.  GCM and clasps may be 
awarded only to enlisted men recommended by their immediate commanding 
officers.  A three year period of continuous active federal enlisted 
service with character excellent terminating on or after 28 Jun 41 was 
required.  However, after the U.S. entered the war, the policy was 
changed to one year of exemplary, efficient and fidelity service after 
7 Dec 41.  This one year policy ended on 2 Mar 46.  Since the decedent 
served for over one year in the Enlisted Reserve Corps after 7 Dec 41, 
he technically met the requirements bestowed a GCM.  On 30 Sep 43, the 
decedent was honorably discharged from military service to accept his 
commission as a second lieutenant and his Enlisted Record shows he 
completed one year, four months and three days of service.  Under this 
same form in the Remarks section, it states the decedent is “Recommended 
for Good Conduct Medal.”

AFHRA/RS recommends denial of the applicant’s request his father be 
awarded the DFC and agrees with the rationale of DPSID.  A total of 
385 aircrew members passed through the 575th Bombardment Group during its 
combat missions in WWII.  Of the 385 aircrew members, a total of 60 DFCs 
were awarded.  As an officer aircrew member in the 575th, there was a 
77 percent chance of not being recognized with an award of the DFC.  
Unfortunately, the decedent was a part of the 77 percent.  After 
comparing the list of DFC award winners versus the crewmembers that the 
decedent flew with, every pilot he flew as co-pilot received a DFC.  The 
one mitigating claim that might have found a favorable consideration for 
the DFC was the decedent’s action in saving an aircraft when forced to 
land in newly won Allied territory as attributed to one of the gunners 
that the decedent flew with.  However, a thorough review of all missions 
noted that list the decedent participating in fail to mention any such 
landing.  Therefore, AFHRA/RS could not find any specific reason why the 
decedent should have been considered for award of the DFC.

A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

SAFPC concurs with the recommendation of AFHRA for award of the GCM and 
concurs with the recommendation of DPSID and AFHRA for disapproval for 
award of the DFC.  At the time of the decedent’s service in the European 
Theater of Operations, the DFC was no longer being awarded based upon 
the number of missions or hours flown.  Additionally, there is 
insufficient evidence (recommendation, witnesses, etc.) to support 
awarding the DFC for an individual act of heroism.

A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFHRA admits they missed finding records on four of his father’s 
missions, one of those missing recorded missions is the one where his 
father landed on the cliffs of Normandy at Omaha Beach, the heroics of 
which are worthy of the DFC.

The AFHRA states his father had to fly 65 combat missions before being 
eligible to rotate home, yet he is credited with flying 67 missions.  
The extra missions seem indicative of a highly heroic person, the 
baseline used for determining who should receive the DFC.  A copy of the 
AGO Form 66-2, AAF Officers Qualification Record, reflects his father 
flew a total of 250 combat hours and 67 missions.   

The AFHRA notes that every pilot his father flew combat missions with 
received the DFC.  The definition of a co-pilot is always sitting on the 
right, next to the pilot.  They assist the captain and play a crucial 
role in navigating a safe ride.  Perhaps there is a common thread and it 
is time to correct an oversight caused by the “fog of war?”

In further support of his requests, the applicant provides a flash drive 
of an interview his father conducted in 1997.  He references names of 
individuals and perhaps their flying records can be researched to 
provide the specific date of his father’s Normandy landing.

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


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 for award of the DFC.  While the 
interview his father conducted in 1997 is noted, he has not provided 
substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the 
assessment of his case by the Air Force Offices of Primary 
Responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force OPR’s and adopt the rationale expressed 
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden of proof of an error or injustice.  In the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application.  

3.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been 
presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to 
warrant partial relief.  We note that DPSID recommends denial of the 
applicant’s request for award of the GCM to his father; however, after 
carefully reviewing the evidence, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of AFHRA/RS and SAFPC and adopt the rationale expressed 
as the basis for our conclusion that the GCM should be reflected in the 
decedent’s records.  Therefore, we recommend the decedent’s records be 
corrected to the extent indicated below.	


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to the DECEDENT be corrected to show that his DD Form 214, 
Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, issued 
in conjunction with his discharge on 3 Aug 54, be amended in Item 27, 
Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign 
ribbons Awarded or Authorized, to include the Good Conduct Medal.  


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2014-00244 in Executive Session on 10 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member
 

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following 
documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00244 
was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 2 Jun 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 3 Apr 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAFPC, undated, with atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 15.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 May 15, w/atchs.