ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00153

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 October 1998, the Board considered applicant’s request that he be awarded the Air Medal, Seventh Oak Leaf Cluster (AM, 7 OLC).  The Board was not persuaded that the applicant should have been automatically awarded the AM, 7 OLC, because he shot down a German aircraft (i.e., ME-109) during World War II.  The Board found insufficient evidence of a probable error or injustice to warrant awarding the AM, 7 OLC, and denied the applicant’s request.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision of the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.

In a letter, dated 18 March 2001, the applicant provided additional documentation, to include a newspaper article regarding retroactive award of the DFC to a World War II veteran, and requested reconsideration of his application.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

The Distinguished Flying Cross 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 14th Air Force had an established policy whereby a DFC was awarded upon the completion of either 50 operational missions, 200 combat hours, or 300 transport and cargo missions.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied. AFPC/DPPPR states, in part, that applicant’s records were destroyed by fire in 1973, at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).  Without the applicant’s records, they are unable to verify his eligibility for the DFC.  They can only verify his awards and decorations according to his Report of Separation.  The applicant has not provided any documentation to substantiate his claim for the DFC.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 June and 17 September 2001 for review and response within 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by the applicant, we are still not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  The newspaper article submitted by the applicant is noted; however, it does not substantiate that he was ever recommended for the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).  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 additional 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 8 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 19 Feb 99, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Mar 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 May 01.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 19 Jun 01.
	Exhibit I.  Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Jun & 17 Sep 01.