RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02533
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The 8th Air Force would award the Air Medal for every five missions flown or each enemy aircraft that was shot down.  Instead of awarding him his fifth Air Medal for shooting down an enemy aircraft on his last mission, he should have been awarded the DFC, as was customary in the 8th Air Force.  If he had been in England rather than the states when he was awarded his fifth Air Medal, he would have been awarded the DFC.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and supportive statements.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

A WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, indicates that the applicant enlisted in the Army of the United States (Army Air Force) on 9 Nov 42 and was honorably discharged on 30 Aug 45.  The WD AGO Form 53-55 also reflects that he was awarded the Air Medal with four Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs), the Good Conduct Medal, Distinguished Unit Badge, and the European African Middle Eastern Service Medal with four Bronze Service Stars.

No documentation was available to substantiate it; however, it appears that the applicant retired from the Air Force in 1977 in the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial noting although the applicant’s Report of Separation reflects award of the Air Medal with four OLCs, his records only contained the orders/citations for the Air Medal with three OLCs.  Two Air Medals were awarded for accomplishing five combat missions, and two for shooting down enemy aircraft, which would be the Air Medal with three OLCs.

AFPC/DPPPR also noted that the applicant submitted a statement from the individual who was his squadron commander until he was shot down and taken as a prisoner of war (POW) on 24 Feb 44.  He stated that he believed the applicant had flown the required 25 missions, although there was a large gap (Apr 44 to Nov 44) between the applicant’s Air Medals.  However, the applicant was shot down on 9 Apr 44 and interned in Sweden until 15 Oct 44.  According to AFPC/DPPPR, since he was interned in a neutral country, he could not have accomplished any combat flight missions.  His records showed that he completed 13 missions during the period 30 Dec 43 to 9 Apr 44 (when he was shot down), and only completed one more combat flight mission on 16 Dec 44, for a total of 14 combat flight missions.

AFPC/DPPPR indicated that the timeline for submitting decorations is two years from the date of the act or achievement.  In the case of World War II decorations, 3 May 51 was established as the cut-off date for submission of recommendations for decorations for acts or achievements during this time period. However, under the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Section 526, which was enacted into law on 10 Feb 96, this timeline has been waived. Under this Act, service members may now request award consideration, based on a written and signed recommendation.  However, the written recommendation must meet two criteria:  1) Be made by someone other than the member in the member’s chain of command at the time of the incident and who has firsthand knowledge of the act or achievement; and 2) be submitted through a Congressional member who can ask a military service to review  a proposal for a decoration based on the merits of the proposal and the award criteria in existence when the event occurred.  However, the applicant did not avail himself of this opportunity but has, instead, applied directly to the AFBCMR, without providing any documentation to substantiate his claim.  He has implied that he flew 25 combat flight missions and, because of the 8th Air Force policy at that time, he should be awarded the DFC.  The applicant’s records showed that he completed only 14 flights, which led to award of two Air Medals for completion of five missions for each Air Medal, and shot down two enemy aircraft, which led to award of two more Air Medals.  Therefore, they could only verify that the applicant was awarded the Air Medal with three OLCs, instead of the four that are reflected on his Report of Separation.  AFPC/DPPPR believes the applicant was recognized with the proper number of decorations and is not eligible for any additional Air Medals or the DFC.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 20 Sep 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale 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.  We believe it should be pointed out that the applicant’s decorated service and sacrifice for his country has not gone unnoticed.  Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that the applicant met the established criteria for award of the DFC.  In view of the above, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02533 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 17 Sep 02, w/atchs, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Sep 02.