RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02153

							COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late father’s Silver Star (SS) be upgraded to the 
Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 6 Aug 45, when the “Enola Gay” (B-29 aircraft) landed on the 
Island of Tinian after dropping the first Atomic Bomb on 
Hiroshima, the pilot (Army Air Corps) received the DSC and the 
former service member (then serving as a US Navy (USN) Captain), 
who aimed the bomb, received the SS and the remaining crew 
members received the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

However, the applicant believes that since all of the remaining 
crew members, other than the pilot, medals were upgraded to the 
SS; her late father’s medal should have been upgraded to the DSC 
based on his contributions to the mission.

The applicant submits the following information to substantiate 
her claim:

      a.  Her father assumed the most personal risk to life and 
limb by anyone on the mission that day, by volunteering to enter 
the bomb bay in flight at altitude to perform a task that had a 
real probability of ending his life with the slightest 
malfunction of the arming and detonation triggering mechanism.  

	b.  He decided that he would be the one to arm the bomb in 
flight because he had noticed that a number of B-29s overloaded 
carrying bombs to be dropped were crashing on takeoff.  His 
heroic actions and personal risks were noted in a book written, 
by a former US Navy Admiral, command pilot, and Commander of 
Carrier units in Korea and Vietnam.  He notes, by avoiding 
crashing with an armed atomic bomb, the former service member 
armed it at altitude, rather before takeoff, which adds to the 
“VOLUNTARY” element of danger that more than justifies award of 
the DSC.

	c.  He and the pilot had equal significance in the mission 
because he was the senior officer specialist assigned and based 
on his familiarity with the design, development and tactical 
features of the bomb; was the only one that could make the call 
in the event that an emergency required a deviation to the 
tactical plans.

	d.  His SS citation is incorrectly written as “Senior 
Military Technical Observer,” as he was the individual who armed 
the bomb in flight and was in charge of the decision for its 
expenditure, where and when or not to use it due to an 
emergency.  Also, this was due to a lack of understanding of her 
father’s role on the historic flight and the “RISK” he took. 
"Senior Military Technical Observer" connotes an individual 
standing at a safe distance looking through binoculars and 
taking notes - hardly what her father did.

	e.  He played a more significant role in the mission than 
the other aircrew; one comparable to the pilot, yet his award 
does not reflect that relative importance.  He initially 
received the SS when the Enola Gay and the aircrew received the 
DFC; however, when all of the DFCs were upgraded to the SS, his 
award should have been upgraded to the DSC.  This shows the 
service parochialism on the part of the medal awarding officer 
and pinpoints a lack of effort on his part to determine exactly 
who did what on the plane and awarding a medal commensurate with 
their level of risk and responsibility.

	f.  The significance of his role in the “Manhattan Project” 
and the mission on the “Enola Gay” justifies upgrade of his SS 
to the DSC.  Documents by the Commanding General of the 
Manhattan Project, suggests that he was not given due credit 
relative to the credit given to the pilot in comparison to his 
actual role on the mission.  Another evidence of service 
parochialism and lack of comprehension of his role on the plane 
and the skills and risk required to arm the bomb at altitude.  
He was essentially in command and control of the operation; 
however, because of Air Force policy the pilot was always in 
command of the plane … but it was her father who had to approve 
the target selected; decide whether the bomb was functioning 
properly or not; personally check the bombardier sites to make 
certain the target and aiming point were as designated, and make 
any decisions involved in the event that it became impossible or 
unwise to attempt to reach the target.  

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely application because she has worked for 42 years, 
completed her Master’s Degree and spent seven years gathering 
documents to substantiate her claim on her father’s behalf.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the information provided by the Air Force 
Historical Research Agency (AFHRA), on 6 Aug 45, the pilot was 
awarded the DSC for his work on the Manhattan Project and his 
participation in the first atomic bomb mission on 6 Aug 45.  

On 9 Aug 45, while serving as a US Navy Captain, the deceased 
former service member was awarded the Silver Star, for his 
participation in the first atomic bomb mission on 6 Aug 45.  
This act was officially recognized by General Orders (GO) Number 
68, Section VII, dated 19 Sep 45, read, for gallantry in action 
while participating in aerial flight against the Japanese 
Empire.  The former service member was Senior Military Technical 
Observer on a B-29 aircraft which flew from a base in the 
Marianas Islands, 6 Aug 45 to drop on the city of Hiroshima, 
Japan, the first atomic bomb to be used in warfare.  After 
takeoff in the very early morning hours, the plane set course as 
planned.  The former service member then climbed into the bomb 
bay to load the powder charge, which had been postponed until 
well after takeoff to assure the safety of the island from which 
departure had been made.  The job was completed without incident 
in forty minutes.  As the airplane approached Japan, the risks 
grew greater, for the element of hazard from the unknown was 
ever present, since this was the first time this bomb, much more 
destructive than any in existence, had been released from an 
airplane.  The possibilities of damage from anti-aircraft fire, 
enemy fighters, and unforeseen failures added to the risk; nor 
was it certain what effect the detonation would have upon the 
bomber and its occupants.  Accompanying the mission to insure 
the bomb's correct use, the former service member kept careful 
watch until the plane was in its briefed position, and then 
approved release.  At 0915 the switch was pressed, the bomb 
cleared safely, and fell towards its planned objective.  They 
then departed with speed from the target area, traveling a safe 
distance before the blast occurred.  By his high degree of skill 
in directing work with the atomic bomb, and great personal risk 
in placing the powder charge in the bomb during flight, the 
former service member distinguished himself, reflecting the 
highest credit on himself and the United States Navy.  

On 9 Aug 45, the remainder of the aircrew were bestowed the DFC 
for their actions on 6 Aug 45.

On 4 Sep 45, the USN announces that the former service member 
was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal (DSM) for his 
participation in the Manhattan Project.

The citation reads, for exceptionally meritorious service to the 
Government of the United States in a duty of great 
responsibility since May 1943, in connection with the 
development of the atomic bomb.  Working with tireless energy, 
courage and foresight, the former service member applied himself 
to the tremendous task of transforming the theory of atomic 
fission into an effective weapon of war capable of being 
manufactured by American production methods at a time when the 
task appeared all but impossible.  He applied his specialized 
knowledge in personally directing much of the design and 
development of the many components of the atomic bomb and in 
formulating and coordinating the plans for disseminating the 
manufacture of these components.  In addition, he also organized 
much of the procedure required in assembling the components into 
an effective weapon under conditions of utmost secrecy.  He 
devoted himself fully to these tasks from May 1943, to the 
initial atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima in which he took part.  
The former service member's organizational ability, brilliant 
professional skill and devotion to duty throughout the 
development and manufacture of the atomic bomb were outstanding 
and in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States 
Naval Service.  

Based on GO Number 69, Section I, dated 20 Sep 45, the remaining 
aircrew members, other than the pilot and the former service 
member, were awarded the SS, despite the presentation of the DFC 
earlier.  This order does not rescind or revoke any earlier 
order of the DFC.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFHRA/RSA recommends denial for award of the DSC.  RSA notes it 
appears the actions by the applicant's father was appropriately 
recognized with the award of the DSM by the US Navy and the 
SS by the Air Force (which was the upper limit of awards allowed 
by the legal constraints of the combatant commander, Twentieth 
Air Force).

The DSC, the nation’s second highest decoration, was established 
by an Act of Congress on 9 Jul 18, and is awarded pursuant to 
section 8742 of Title 10 United States Code (70A statute 540).  
The decoration is awarded to any person who, while serving in 
any capacity after 6 Apr 17, distinguishes himself by 
extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations 
against an armed enemy of the United States.  The act of heroism 
performed must involve a risk of life so extraordinary as to set 
the person apart from his comrades.  The Department of the Air 
Force is the awarding authority.  This authority is delegated to 
major air commanders during wartime.  All awards of the DSC to 
foreign persons are reserved to the Department of the Air Force.

After a thorough review of the applicant's official military 
personnel record and the historical records, the basic facts of 
the applicant were verified in that her father, (then) a 
Captain, in the US Navy, was awarded the SS medal for his 
actions on the 6 Aug 45 Hiroshima atomic mission aboard the 
Enola Gay.  The pilot, upon returning from this mission, was 
awarded the DSC.  Four days later, the rest of the crew were 
recognized for their participation in the same mission by an 
awards ceremony held by the Twentieth Air Force's 313th 
Bombardment Wing, in which the wing commander, bestowed the 
Silver Star onto the former service member and the DFC to all 
other members of the Enola Gay aircrew.  On 4 Sept 45, the 
former service member was also awarded the DSM by the US Navy 
for his participation and contributions to the atomic bomb 
development, the Manhattan Project.  A few weeks later, the 
official orders for the decorations for the Enola Gay aircrew 
were finally published, but instead of one SS and numerous DFCs, 
the various orders sum up to where each member of the Enola Gay 
crew (except the pilot) are all recognized with a SS medal each.  
Further, the documented reasoning behind the awarding of the SS 
medal, vice the DSC and the allegations of bias, inter-service 
rivalry and blatant parochialism intended to intentionally, or 
unintentionally, snub the former service member could not be 
documented either through his official military personnel files, 
applicant-supplied documentation, or the holdings of the AFHRSA.

However, RSA notes, if the Board wishes to consider its options 
under this situation, the following are offered for the Board's 
consideration:

      1.  Make no changes and leave the SS medal as is, as it 
only pertains to the 6 Aug 45 mission, and like the rest of the 
aircrew, the former service member performed his part flawlessly 
and was thusly recognized for it by the combatant commander 
under the authority he was delegated. 
      
      2.  The USAF revoke the SS medals of the rest of the Enola 
Gay aircrew and instead, publish a new order bestowing the DFC 
awards to them as originally physically (but no orders ever 
published) done on 9 Aug 45 and allow the SS medal for the 
former service member to stand unchanged.  In this way, ten 
individuals will have their SS awards reduced to a lesser award 
to maintain the prestige of the former service member’s SS for 
this mission.

      3.  The USAF revoke the SS medal for the former service 
member and award the DSM, 1st Oak Leaf Cluster.  This would 
require a justification for the one mission and would be acting 
in the authority as the 1945 War Department.

      4. The USAF revoke the SS medal and Department of the Navy 
revoke the DSM (this would require cooperation with the 
Department of the Navy) and bestow· the DSC to the former 
service member, by including the justification of his actions 
prior to the initial atomic bomb mission and (much like the 
pilot’s DSC, include the former service members' actions on the 
first atomic mission as part of the DSC justification.)  In this 
option, the former service member loses two awards to gain one.

The complete AFHRA/RSA evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP concurs with the denial recommendation from AFHRA for 
the award of the DSC.  

MRBP notes the former service member received the DSM, awarded 
by the US Navy, for his accomplishments in support of the 
Manhattan Project.  Nearly simultaneously, he received the SS 
from Twentieth Air Force for his efforts aboard the Enola Gay on 
6 Aug 45.  The SS is an appropriate recognition for this single-
day event.  His actions as one member of the crew were heroic, 
and essential to the success of the mission, but no more or less 
than every other member of the crew.

It is not in any way derogatory towards the former service 
member that he received the same award as every other member of 
the crew, with the exception of the pilot, who was presented the 
DSC.  As the AFHRA narrative states, the pilot received the DSC 
not solely for his actions aboard the Enola Gay, but for the 
months of training and preparation that culminated in mission 
success on 6 Aug 45.

Lastly, the suggestion the former service member and the pilot 
were equals in responsibility on 6 Aug 45 is inaccurate.  As the 
aircraft commander, the pilot was responsible for the totality 
of mission success, including aircraft launch and recovery, the 
several-thousand mile round trip, air navigation, weather 
avoidance, addressing enemy aircraft considerations, and also 
coordinating with the former service member on the technical 
aspects and status of the atomic bomb.  The pilot's scope of 
responsibility was much larger, and that coupled with his months 
of preparation and training are deserving of his recognition 
with the DSC.

The complete MRBP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant agrees with Option #4 from the evaluation by 
AFHRA.  She notes this would require the revocation of the SS by 
the Department of the Air Force and the revocation of the DSM by 
the Department of the Navy and then awarding of the DSC by the 
Department of the Air Force.  In this option, her father loses 
two awards to gain one.

Further, she request that since the pilot’s DSC citation 
included both his work leading up to and including the flight of 
6 Aug 45 (i.e. both non-combat and combat), that a proposed 
citation, enclosed with her submission be considered as a basis 
for the justification for her father receiving the DSC, just as 
the pilot was allowed to do in receiving his DSC 

She disagrees with the wording used in the AFHRA’s evaluation 
and states it would have been appropriate to have used the 
wording of “Senior Project Officer” versus “Senior Military 
Technical Observer.”  

Also, she does not believe the information referencing her 
father being promoted to Commodore (one star rank) soon after 
the 6 Aug 45 flight and the pilot not being promoted to 
Brigadier General until 1960 is relevant to her request.  

In a copy of a phone message dated 10 Aug 45 (4:45 p.m.) 
regarding awarding the DSM because of implied “dreadful 
mistake,” presumably because her father did not receive the 
higher decoration of the DSC, on par with pilot’s decoration, 
for both his work on the Manhattan Project and actions on the 
flight of 6 Aug 45.  This phone message demonstrates that there 
was no plan in advance for giving the DSM as postulated in the 
evaluation.  If there were such a plan, why would former Major 
General G., express such displeasure at her father receiving the 
lesser SS for his contribution? 

Furthermore, she notes the Fitness Report narrative of 10 Jan 
45, written to a former Director of the Laboratory at Los 
Alamos, New Mexico.  The former Director’s management of the 
Manhattan Project was instrumental in the successful development 
and deployment of the gun-type uranium bomb “Little Boy” and the 
plutonium implosion bomb “Fat Man.”  As a supervisor of her 
father, his strong, positive assessment of the critical role he 
played in the Manhattan Project overall is unquestionable.  

The supported documents clearly show the close and significant 
relationship that existed in the critical need to provide a 
timely and efficient delivery of the best B-29's available.  Her 
father’s Interservice relationship with the pilot and the former 
director, was at the highest level so as to produce the best and 
most efficient product available quickly.  This also 
demonstrates the need for a DSC award to her father for his 
crucial work before the 6 Aug 45 flight, just as the pilot was 
allowed to do in his DSC citation.

Lastly, she request a review of the letter from a former Vice 
Admiral, USN (retired) (deceased) of 25 Jul 11, in particular, 
that portion of the letter that emphasizes how the SS did not 
reflect the importance of her father’s role as the Principal 
Deputy to the former Director.  Further, his role in the B-
29 “Enola Gay” mission has not been suitably recognized by the 
Army Air Forces award of the SS.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the 
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.  
The 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.  The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the 
delay in filing this application over 68 years after that 
historic event, and we are not persuaded that the record raises 
issues of error or injustice which would have resulted in a 
favorable resolution on the merits.  Thus, while this honorable 
Board salutes the former service member and his contributions to 
the success of the “Enola Gay” mission; we cannot conclude it 
would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s 
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-2014-02153 in Executive Session on 21 May 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFHRA/RSA, dated 17 Nov 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 14 Jan 15, w/atch.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 15.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Mar 15, 10 Mar 15,
            and 12 Mar 15, w/atchs.