RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02353

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for the DFC for bombing the Japanese heavy cruiser “Aoba,” but never received it.

The applicant states that on 6 June 1944, he was the lead bombardier aboard a B-24 aircraft during a bombing attack against a Japanese ship and his aircraft was the only one in the formation to score direct hits on the “Aoba.”  He was told that he was recommended for the DFC for the mission because the bombardier of another aircraft received the DFC under almost identical circumstances.  The original letter recommending him for the DFC may have been changed or substituted for another by someone having access to the commander’s office.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits excerpts from a newsletter, the 380th Bomb Group history, and statements from the former tail-gunner and engineer gunner (top turret).  The statement from the tail-gunner indicates that he saw three bombs splash very close to the left side of the ship and one bomb splash on the right side of the ship.  The engineer gunner’s statement indicates that he saw a bomb hit the deck and both sides of the cruiser as they made their turn to avoid the flak.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Army Air Corps B-24 bombardier who served on active duty from 13 May 1943 through 21 November 1945.

During this period, he completed a total of 35 combat missions and was awarded the Air Medal with Two Oak Leaf Clusters, two Bronze Service Stars, and a Letter of Commendation by the Commanding General, Far East Air Forces (FEAF).

The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July 1926 and is awarded for 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.

During World War II, the 5th Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of 50 combat missions and an AM was awarded upon the completion of 25 combat missions.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR, states that while the applicant has provided statements from individuals regarding the 6 June 1944 bombing mission on a Japanese vessel, the statements are conflicting.  The statement from the tail gunner indicates that he saw splashes very close to either side of the Japanese ship, and the statement from the top turret gunner indicates that he saw a bomb hit the deck of the Japanese ship.  The newsletter article attributes the hit to another individual, but the Group history gives the applicant credit for the hit.  The applicant contends the other individual took credit for his hit and was awarded the DFC.  Although there is no longer any record of a DFC recommendation being submitted into official channels, they believe that it was submitted, but the FEAF Commander awarded him a Letter of Commendation, in lieu of the DFC.  Since the applicant waited over 55 years to submit a claim for the DFC, there are no longer any records available for verification and most of the individuals who would have had first-hand knowledge are deceased, there is no way to verify any of his claims.  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 eyewitness statements are not in conflict with each other.  Neither gunner apparently had full view of the target at the time so each only states what he saw, which was the right thing for them to do.  The squadron commander signed a letter two days after he said that he had sent a letter recommending him for the DFC.  In addition, there is mention of the DFC recommendation in official documents.  In view of this, and since another bombardier from the same squadron, some 50 years later, told the editor writing the group history that he was the bombardier on the subject mission, it should lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that an investigation is warranted to determine if the letter written by the squadron commander was either changed or substituted; whereby, the DFC may have been issued to an undeserving person.

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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant's contentions, a majority of the Board is not persuaded that he should be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).  The statements provided by the applicant’s former crew member’s are duly noted; however, a majority of the Board does not find them, in and by themselves, sufficient to warrant awarding the DFC.  Although the applicant was recommended for the DFC, there is no evidence the recommendation was approved.  Furthermore, it appears that in lieu of the DFC, the applicant received a Letter of Commendation for his actions on 6 June 1944.  The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is noted and the majority’s recommendation to deny the requested relief in no way diminishes the high regard we have for his service; however, insufficient documentary evidence has been presented to warrant awarding him the DFC.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
 
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 6 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

A majority of the Board voted to deny the application.  Mr. voted to grant the application and has submitted a Minority Report that is at Exhibit F.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 14 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Sep 01.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.
	Exhibit F.  Minority Report.

                                   

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 								 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Application of SUBJECT

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.

							

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
			    AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT:  APPLICANT, DOCKET NO: 01-02353

	The majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s request for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) be denied.  However, in view of the circumstances in this case, I believe he should be awarded the DFC.

	The majority of the Board found the statements provided by the applicant’s former crew members insufficient to warrant awarding the DFC.  However, I find these statements from eyewitnesses to the sinking of the Japanese Heavy Cruiser Aoba compelling.  The former tail-gunner states that he saw three bombs splash very close to the left side of the ship and one bomb splash of the right side of the ship and the engineer gunner states that he saw a bomb hit the deck and both sides of the cruiser as they made their turn to avoid the flak.

	In view of these statements, and since the 380th Bomb Group history gives the applicant credit for the direct hit on the Aoba, I strongly believe the applicant has met his burden of proof that his records are in error and unjust.  Therefore, based on a totality of the evidence presented, I believe the interest of justice can best be served by resolving this issue in the applicant’s behalf.

	Based on the foregoing, I recommend that the applicant be awarded the DFC for his actions on 6 June 1944.