RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02015
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for actions on a bombing mission on 10 October 1944.

By amendment, the applicant is requesting that he be awarded the “Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal” for participation in aerial flights during the period 23 December 1944 through 3 April 1945.  In addition, his Enlisted Record and Report of Separation (WD AGO Form 53-55) be corrected by adding “China, Formosa and Western Pacific Campaigns” to Item 32 (Battles and Campaigns).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The commanding officer of the 65th Bombardment Squadron made the recommendation for the DFC for their history-making mission of a daylight raid on the Japanese oil refinery base at Balikpapan, Borneo.

In response to HQ AFPC/DPPPRA’s 3 July 2003 letter, he provides a personal statement, with documentation to substantiate his appeal.   He was recommended for the DFC by his commander/pilot, concurred by his squadron and group commander and advised that the request would be honored.  His former commander/pilot further points out that he was not credited with the China, Formosa and Western Pacific Campaigns.  Also, his former commander/pilot is shown receiving the Fourth Cluster to the Air Medal for participating in flights March-April 1945.  The record of his last 17 missions, December 23, 1944 through April 3, 1945, appears as if it did not exist.

In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the former squadron flight surgeon, electronic mail from the former aircraft commander/pilot, dated 28 February 2002, a personal letter, dated 15 July 2003, copies of his separation documents, a statement from the former aircraft commander/pilot, dated 12 April 2001, a personal letter, dated 26 February 2001, copies of his flight log, mission diary and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center.

The following information was extracted from applicant’s submission.  His Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, WD AGO Form 53-55, reveals 9 January 1943 as the date of entry into active service and that he served with the 65th Bombardment Squadron.  He was credited with an overseas tour in Australia during the period 16 May 1944 to 6 May 1945.  He was credited with the following battles and campaigns:  New Guinea; Bismarck Archipelago; North Solomons Campaigns, Southern Philippines and Luzon.  The applicant was awarded the Purple Heart Medal, Good Conduct Medal, Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with five bronze service stars, Philippine Liberation Medal with two bronze service stars, American Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal.  Applicant’s Report of Separation reveals he was wounded in action in Borneo on 10 October 1944.  On 20 May 1945, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Army Air Corps in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) under the provisions of AR 615-365 and RR 1-1 (Demobilization).  He had completed a total of 1 year, 4 months and 19 days of continental service and 11 months and 23 days of foreign service.

The applicant’s Army Separation Qualification Record, WD AGO Form 100, reveals that he participated in 43 combat and 34 combat ferry missions and that he was recommended for the DFC and second oak leaf cluster for the Air Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request for award of the DFC and additional campaign credit for the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal be denied.  DPPPR believes that all members of the 
applicant’s crew were recommended for award of the DFC for the 10 October 1944 mission, but all decorations were downgraded to the Air Medal (AM).  The applicant’s WD Form 111 refers to recommendations submitted for the DFC and Air Medal with second oak leaf cluster; the applicant received the AM with three oak leaf clusters.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that his DFC, like his commander’s, was downgraded to the AM.  DPPPR states that the applicant is the third surviving crew member to ask for award of the DFC for the 10 October 1944 mission; both of the other crew members’ requests were denied by the AFBCMR.  The applicant’s aircraft commander’s request for award of the DFC was denied on 29 May 02.  Since the applicant has apparently already received an AM for the 10 October 1944 mission, he is ineligible for award of the DFC for the same mission.  According to AF Pamphlet 900-2, the applicant’s unit was only credited with participation in the Antisubmarine campaign; therefore, he is actually entitled to only one bronze service star to the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal rather than the five bronze service stars reflected on the Report of Separation.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He stated that the advisory writer’s facts were inaccurate and did not respond to all of his requests.  He served on an overseas tour during the period of May 1944 to May 1945 with the Fifth Army Air Force (AAF), 43rd Bomb Group, 65th Bomb Squadron and has listed the specific locations.  The document provided by his aircraft commander to the Director of Veterans Service Agency was a DFC recommendation, which specifically recommended him for the award.  The flight surgeon’s letter verified his recommendation for the DFC and was approved by the squadron commander.  The recommendation was forwarded to Group headquarters and unfortunately lost.  He is asking for additional campaign credit for his Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal based on the following:  He participated in five bombing missions to Formosa and, on one of these missions, his 41st (26 March 1945), their crew was credited with the sinking of a large enemy vessel.  He participated on three bombing missions to China and on two of these missions, his 42nd (31 March 1945 to Yulin, China) and 43rd (3 April 1945 to Hong Kong, China), their crew was credited with the sinking of two large enemy vessels.  He has provided documentation showing that other crewmembers received this credit.

In addition, the advisory writer failed to address his request for award of the Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal.  The basis for his request is that he did not receive any recognition for his participation from missions 27 through 43 (23 December 1944 through 3 April 1945).  The rest of his crew received the Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the AM for this time frame and he has provided verifying documents.

The statement that his unit was only credited with participation in the Antisubmarine campaign in the Asiatic Pacific Campaign is the height of incompetence and an insult to all the brave men who served in their victory.  He flew 43 bombing missions, plus numerous supply and troop movements flights, and never once an antisubmarine mission.  He was separated from the service two months earlier than the rest of his crew due to being the first member to complete the magic score.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a statement from his aircraft commander/pilot.  A complete copy of this response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

On 18 November 2003, the applicant was provided redacted copies of similar cases considered by the AFBCMR (Exhibit E).  Subsequent to his review of the referenced cases, the applicant believes the aircraft pilot, co-pilot and all crewmembers were advised at the squadron debriefing that they would all receive the DFC for their extraordinary achievements in the historic Balikpapan Raid, which was verified by the flight surgeon’s 8 March 2001 letter he provided.  A complete copy of this response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the following advisory opinion was provided.

HQ AFPC/DPPPR states that the applicant received the Air Medal, with third oak leaf cluster, for his actions on 10 October 1944.  The recommendation was processed and received by the final approval authority, who downgraded the DFC to the Air Medal, as were those of his other crewmembers.  The applicant believes that since he flew combat missions during designated campaign periods, he should have additional bronze service stars to his Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal.  The applicant’s unit, the 65th Bombardment Squadron, did not receive credit for participation in more than one campaign.  DPPPR is unable to verify any additional campaign credit.  The majority of the official documents the applicant provided pertained to his aircraft commander, not to himself.  Applicant’s Army Separation Qualification record (WD AFO Form 100) does state that he participated in 43 combat and 34 combat ferry missions.  As of 20 May 1945, the date he was demobilized, the applicant had received the Air Medal with one oak leaf cluster and the Purple Heart Medal.  He has been recommended for the DFC and second oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal.  The recommendation for the second oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal was approved, and then was awarded the third oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal in lieu of the DFC.  DPPPR recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC for actions on 10 October 1944; additional campaign credit for the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal; and, award of the Air Medal with fourth oak leaf cluster for the period 23 December 1944 to 3 April 1945.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He stated that his pilot and co-pilot and other gunners on his crew received credit for the Formosa and China campaigns.  His log shows that he flew in these campaigns and received a letter of confirmation from his pilot.  With regard to the fourth cluster to the Air Medal, he did not receive any credit for his last 17 missions, December 1944 through April 1945.  His crewmembers all received the fourth cluster for this time period.  His log confirms he flew the missions.  In addition, a confirming letter from his pilot and a copy of his separation papers shows he received the fourth cluster to the Air Medal and campaign stars for the Formosa and China campaigns.  As to the DFC recommendation, it appears his denial was based on his other crewmembers being denied.  They received a cluster to the Air Medal for this historic mission.  This was a blanket decoration due to the significance of the historic raid.  They were each recommended for the DFC for their individual extraordinary achievements during this flight.  Each individual should be judged and awarded on their merits.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and additional history about the 43rd Bomb Group, 5th AAF.  A complete copy of this response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting partial relief.  After reviewing applicant’s submission, to include the aircraft commander’s statements and supporting documents, we are persuaded that, due to an oversight, the applicant did not receive combat mission credit for the Formosa, China and Western Pacific Campaigns.  We, therefore, believe the applicant’s separation document should reflect the cited campaigns.  With regard to the Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal, we note the applicant’s detailed mission log reflects his participation in aerial flights during the period 23 December 1944 through 3 April 1945.  In addition, it was noted that the aircraft commander was awarded an oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal for participating in sustained operational flight missions during a similar time frame.  Apparently, the award of the Air Medal was determined by the number of combat missions.  In support of applicant’s claim, we note the statement from the former aircraft commander confirms the combat missions the applicant flew with his crew.  Even though the applicant has not substantiated that he was ever recommended for award of the Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal, after a thorough review of his submission, we are persuaded that the applicant’s request should be approved based on the type and number of combat missions he flew during the war.  In view of the foregoing and in order to offset any possibility of an injustice, we are convinced that he was deserving of the requested award.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

4  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice concerning award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be awarded the DFC for the 10 October 1944 incident.  Although the applicant, along with his crew, was recommended for the DFC for the 10 October 1944 mission, the decorations were apparently downgraded to the Air Medal.  There is nothing in the evidence provided which would cause us to believe this action by the approving authorities was erroneous, unjust, or contrary to the governing regulations and policies in effect at that time.  The applicant’s highly commendable actions during the course of his career have not gone unnoticed by this Board.  However, since the applicant was recognized for his meritorious achievement by the officials charged with making this determination when he was awarded the Air Medal and he has provided no evidence not available at the time the Air Medal was approved, we find no compelling basis to recommend favorable action on applicant’s request for award of the DFC.

5  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 issue(s) involved.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

	a.  In addition to the Air Medals previously awarded, based on his meritorious achievement while participating in sustained operational flight missions in the Southwest Pacific Area, he was also awarded the Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal.

	b.  The WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, issued on 20 May 1945, be amended to reflect Block 32 (Battles and Campaigns) credit for participation in the China, Formosa and Western Pacific Campaigns.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 25 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-02015.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 02, received 12 Jun 03,
	             w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 8 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter from Applicant, dated 25 Aug 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Nov 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 26 Nov 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 9 Jan 04.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jan 04.
   Exhibit I.  Letter from Applicant, dated 12 Feb 04, w/atchs.

AFBCMR BC-2003-02015

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

	a.  In addition to the Air Medals previously awarded, based on his meritorious achievement while participating in sustained operational flight missions in the Southwest Pacific Area, he was also awarded the Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster to the Air Medal.

	b.  The WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, issued on 20 May 1945, be, and hereby is, amended to reflect Block 32 (Battles and Campaigns) credit for participation in the China, Formosa and Western Pacific Campaigns.