RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01090
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster (AM w/1OLC) equates to 400 hours of operational flight time. Therefore, he qualifies for award of the DFC, which required 200 fours of operational flight time under the revised policy.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the documentation provided by AFHRA/RS:
a. The applicant served as a copilot in the Army Air Corps the India Burma Theater during WWII.
b. Under General Order 149, dated 27 Jun 45, the applicant was awarded the AM for participating in more than 250 hours of operational flight in a transport aircraft during the period 13 Feb 45 through 7 Jun 45.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The DFC may be awarded to any person, who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguished 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. The Revised Policy for Award of the DFC, Memorandum to Theater Commanders, dated 14 Aug 43, 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. 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. The applicants request is based on the number of sorties flown during World War II; however, he did not submit sufficient documentation to reasonably consider his request.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFHRA/RS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. When the applicant first arrived at his duty station, airmen could be recommended for the Air Medal (AM) after 150 operational hours and the DFC after 300 operational hours. However, on 1 Apr 45, before he attained his 150 hours, the policy changed. Under the new policy an individual was considered for award of the AM after completing 250 operational hours and for the DFC after 500 hours. Due to this policy change, the applicant did not qualify for the AM until 7 Jun 45. To obtain the DFC, the applicant would have had to fly 500 hours. No documentation was submitted indicating the applicant completed 500 operational flying hours.
A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The DFC criteria in place for the China-Burma-India (CBI) Theater changed on 1 Apr 45 and required 500 hours for award of the DFC. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant achieved the threshold of 500 hours to earn the DFC before the end of the war.
A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Through a letter from his son, he contends that based upon the AFHRA/RS description of the requirements for award of flying decorations in WWII, the Air Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster he already has would have been awarded after completing 750 flying hours, and the DFC he is requesting would have been awarded to him after 500 flying hoursprior to award of the AM w/1OLC he received. He submitted a picture of what he alleges is his WWII uniform, which reflects the AM w/1OLC. He left the theater of operation on 14 Dec 45, after accumulating about 1000 hours. The fire which destroyed the military records should not be held against him (Exhibit G).
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:
After careful consideration of applicants request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to file in a timely manner.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01090 in Executive Session on 19 Mar 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 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 23 Jan 15, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, undated.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Feb 15.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Feb 15, w/atchs.
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00809
Other than the reference to the DFC in his units awards and decorations officers 14 Feb 69 letter, there is no official military documentation recommending or awarding the DFC to the applicant. Notwithstanding the above, AFPC/DPSIDs research did reveal the AM w/3BOLC, VCM, Vietnam Service Medal with four Bronze Service Stars (VSM w/4 BSS), and Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/P), should have been awarded during the applicants service from 26 Feb 65 to 12 Nov 68 but...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00244
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). 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 fathers missions, one of those missing recorded...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00454
The applicant contends his request through his Congressman in 2001 resulted in being awarded the DFC w/1 BOLC; however, a letter from the NPRC to his Congressman, on behalf of the applicant, states they verified entitlement to the requested medals and awards on the DA Form 1577, Authorization for Issuance of Awards, which includes a basic award of the DFC but no annotation of a DFC w/1 BOLC. The applicant was awarded the Air Medal (AM) w/ 9 OLCs by an Eighth Air Force Special Order (G-353)...
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 01251
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01251 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC), with one Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster. The applicants WD AGD Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge, reflects the award of the following Medals and/or Ribbons: - Distinguished Flying Cross - Air Medal with three Bronze Clusters -...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01521
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01521 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) awarded for his actions on 1-2 May 99 be changed from being awarded for extraordinary achievement to being awarded for extraordinary heroism with award of the valor (V) device. There is no documentation in the records to support his characterization of this deployed...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01298
Additionally, the Board notified the applicant that his request for award of the VSM was a new request and required a new DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records. There is no official documentation in the applicant's record verifying he was recommended for or awarded the DFC. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it was discoverable at the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01060
On 2 Dec 66, the former service member was transferred from the NY ANG to the Air Force Reserve. There is no official documentation in the decedent's record, nor did the next of kin provide any with this request, to verify the decedent was recommended for or awarded the DFC or the BSM, w/1BOLC. The DFC may be awarded to any persons who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01991
NPRC records do not show he was awarded the Aerial Gunner Badge or the Aircrew Member Badge. However, he was awarded both since he completed training and served in a unit that completed combat missions. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. USAF/A3O-AIF recommends approval of the request for the Aircrew Member Badge.