RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-01180
		INDEX CODE 107.00  131.00
	 	COUNSEL:  

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His father’s grade of lieutenant be restored and he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His father was involved in an altercation with an anti-Semitic officer, resulting in a court-martial that cost him his rank and the DFC. His father had distinguished himself in basic training and was given the opportunity to proceed to officer candidate school and become a pilot in the Army Air Corps. His father completed pilot training in May 43 and was assigned as a B-24 bomber pilot, first in Sidney, Australia, and then in New Guinea, Morotai, and Manila. On one of his father’s 31 missions, Japanese artillery damaged the landing gear of the plane, forcing his father to “belly land” the plane on a Pacific island beach. Some crewmembers died in the crash landing and his father sustained serious injuries. His father was awarded the DFC and, after recovering from his injuries, resumed flying in the Pacific. Following receipt of the DFC, an individual, possibly a captain, kept making anti-Semitic remarks to his father over a period of time. In 1945, his father, who had taken enough insults, attacked and physically harmed this individual. His father’s commander and crewmembers testified in his behalf at the court-martial. Although he was reduced to sergeant and the DFC was taken away, he was allowed to continue serving and eventually received an honorable discharge. The anti-Semitic captain was demoted to lieutenant.

He had always been led to believe that his father was discharged as a lieutenant and had simply lost the DFC. However, his father recently revealed this story to him. He wants his father’s rank and medal restored.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Except for a few charred documents, the member’s records appear to have been destroyed during the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center. The following information was extracted from documents provided by the applicant (the member’s son) at Exhibit A and by the Air Force at Exhibit C.

The applicant originally appealed through his Congressional representative on 10 Dec 01. On 11 Feb 02, the Army Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) advised the representative that they had reviewed all court-martial cases during 1940-1945 and were unable to find a member matching the name and description provided by the applicant. The Army JAG further indicated they found no record of such an individual with the Army service identification number provided being court-martialed or sentenced for the offenses, or in the manner described. 

The applicant subsequently filed appeals with both the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and the AFBCMR around Mar 2002.

On 7 May 02, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant that the Army could not find any records of an individual with a name of or similar to his father’s being court-martialed during the 1940-1945 period. Further, DPPPRA was unable to verify that his father was an officer in the military, was awarded the DFC, or was hospitalized in the Philippines for any injuries, especially those suffered in an aircraft crash. The available records reflect the following:

	The member was inducted on 3 May 43 and called to active duty in the Army on 10 May 43. He was “acceptable for limited military service only by reason of poor vision in left eye” and, shortly after he entered active duty, was disqualified physically for combat crew training on 26 Jul 43. The member arrived in the Pacific Theater of Operations (New Guinea, Southern Philippines, Luzon) on 12 May 44 and served as a radio mechanic with various Army Air communications squadrons while in the Pacific Theater. The member was admitted to the 49th General Hospital on 23 Aug 45 in Luzon, Philippines, for “psychoneurosis, anxiety state, moderate, external stress, moderate, predisposition mild.” He departed on 27 Nov 45 and arrived back in the US on 14 Dec 45. The member was honorably discharged on 24 Dec 45 as a corporal, the highest rank he held in the military. He received the World War II Victory Medal, the American Theater Ribbon, the Asiatic-Pacific Theater Ribbon with three Bronze Battle Stars, the Philippine Liberation Ribbon, the Overseas Service Bars, the Meritorious Unit Award, and the Good Conduct Medal. 

Based on the above, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA asked the applicant to withdraw his application.  On 28 Jun 02, the applicant declined and advised that his father had further informed him that he (the father) had served in the ---th Heavy Bomber Squadron while in the Pacific, that the squadron was known as the Heavy Bomber Squadron from the Far East Air Force and was combined from the -th and the ----h squadrons. He further asserted his father claimed the poor vision in his left eye was the result of a crash in one of the airplanes he had been piloting and he was subsequently limited for combat crew training. 

On 18 Oct 02, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA informed the applicant that the -th and --th Bombardment Squadrons did not combine to make up the ---th Bombardment Squadron. Further, the -- Bombardment Squadron did not even deploy overseas until Dec 44, the --- Bombardment Squadron was in the Pacific area throughout World War II, and the ---th Bombardment Squadron was not deployed overseas until 12 May 45. Historical extracts were provided to the applicant. HQ AFPC/DPPPRA further indicated that, other than his father’s assertions, the applicant had provided no documentation substantiating the member was a pilot and awarded the DFC, was court-martialed and subsequently forfeited the medal and his grade, was ever in a plane crash, or any of the other claims. The applicant was again asked to provide official documentation substantiating his father’s allegations or to withdraw the application until such time as official documentation was located. 

Since the applicant did not respond, processing of his application continued.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR notes the applicant has not provided any documentation showing his father was an officer and a pilot, awarded the DFC, demoted by court-martial from an officer to enlisted rank, or involved in an aircraft accident.  The member’s records show he was an enlisted member throughout his active duty career, served as a radio mechanic, received the Good Conduct Medal, and was only hospitalized for an anxiety attack while in the Philippines. The member was never assigned to a bombardment unit and the information regarding the bombardment units as related by the applicant is not consistent with official records.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to substantiate any of his claims regarding his father. The appeal should be denied because the DFC was never awarded.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial as there is insufficient documentation to support the applicant’s claim that his father was an officer.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations, with attachments, were forwarded to the applicant on 16 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant awarding the applicant’s father the grade of lieutenant and the DFC. The applicant has provided no persuasive corroboration to confirm his father’s recollection of events. The available records do not confirm that his father served as a pilot in the grade of lieutenant, was awarded the DFC, or was ever court-martialed. What the existing documentation does authenticate is that the applicant’s father was a decorated member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, in an enlisted grade, served our country honorably in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. Time may affect specific recollections, but the applicant can be proud of his father’s service to our country during an extraordinary period in history. As the applicant has been unable to substantiate his assertions, we have no recourse but to conclude his application should be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 25 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-01180 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 13 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 May 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.