RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00860
		INDEX CODE 107.00
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded two additional Air Medal (AMs) for his last ten combat missions.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the period in question the AM was awarded upon the completion of five combat missions and since he completed 40 combat missions, he is entitled to eight AMs.

The applicant states that he flew a total of 40 combat missions in Northern Africa, (i.e., 35 combat missions with Captain T*** as the turret gunner and his last five combat missions were with different aircrews).  His second tour of duty was in the China-Burma-India Theatre of Operation (CBI TO) as a C-46 radio operator.  He was formally awarded the AM for completion of his first five combat missions; however, no further ceremonies or award presentations were made for the remaining AMs he received.  Because of his moving around, his awards were probably kept in limbo somewhere.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits his personal statement and documentation reflecting his completion of 40 combat missions and 12 sub-patrol missions.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Army Air Corps that served on active duty from 8 October 1941 to 28 September 1945. During this period, he completed a total of 40 combat missions and 12 sub-patrol missions, as a turret gunner and radio operator.

The applicant served in North Africa from 2 December 1942 to 2 February 1943.

On 1 June 1943, the applicant was awarded the AM for meritorious achievement while participating in five sorties against the enemy.

On 11 September 1943, the applicant was awarded the AM, 1 OLC, for meritorious achievement while participating in five sorties against the enemy.

On 13 September 1943, the applicant was awarded the AM, 3 OLC, for meritorious achievement while participating in five sorties against the enemy.

On 11 October 1943, the applicant was awarded the AM, 4 OLC, for meritorious achievement while participating in five sorties against the enemy.

From 15 March 1945 to 20 March 1945, the applicant served in the China-Burma-India Theatre of Operation (CBI TO).

On 17 August 1945, the applicant was awarded the AM, 5 OLC, for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight from 31 March 1945 to 9 June 1945 as aerial radio operator.

On 21 September 1945, the applicant was awarded the AM, 6 OLC, for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight as aerial radio operator from 31 March 1945 to 7 September 1945.

The AM is awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.

During World War II, the 8th and 12th Air Forces had an established policy whereby an AM was awarded upon the completion of five combat missions over Africa.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, states that applicant’s Report of Separation reflects award of the AM, 5 OLC; Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, with 2 Bronze Service Stars; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, with 3 Bronze Service Stars; Good Conduct Medal; and Distinguished Unit Citation.  However, while reviewing his records, it was discovered that he earned the AM, 4 OLC, during his tour in Northern Africa, and earned two more AMs during his tour in the CBI TO.  Therefore, his Report of Separation should have reflected award of the AM, 6 OLC, the American Defense Service Medal, the American Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal.  However, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal should not reflect any bronze service stars because the unit to which he was assigned was not credited with any campaign participation.  In addition, the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal should reflect four bronze service stars, instead of three.  Furthermore, since none of the units to which he was assigned earned the Distinguished Unit Citation while he was assigned to them, he is not entitled to the award.

AFPC/DPPPR states that there is no evidence provided by the applicant showing that a written recommendation for any additional AMs was submitted into official channels.  The AM recommendations for flights performed during the applicant’s first overseas tour were processed after he departed the command.  Had he been recommended for any additional AMs for his first tour, the documentation would have been processed prior to his arrival in the CBI TO.  Had the recommendations been submitted and denied, they do not believe any documentation would be found in his records, since he and his records had departed the European Theatre of Operations.  Although decorations for aerial achievement were still being awarded based on a pre-determined number of combat flight missions, a written recommendation had to be submitted into official channels for approval.  Without such documentation, they cannot verify his eligibility for any additional AMs.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that the Air Corps record keeping leaves much to be desired.  He hopes that someone will give him a corrected copy of any awards to which he is entitled.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the office of the Air Force.  The office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinion and recommendation.  We, therefore, adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 9 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 8 May 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 01.

                                   
                                   Chair