RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03307
INDEX CODE:  107.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NO

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for heroic actions he performed on 7 February 1945.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recommended for the DFC in 1945; however, the ground maintenance crew didn’t know his name, and they mistakenly awarded the DFC to the Flight Engineer instead of him.  The Air Medal (AM) that was awarded to him on 4 November 2002 by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) is not the appropriate decoration for his actions.  

The applicant has provided a personal statement; a statement from the pilot of the aircraft; a copy of the AM Citation; a copy of his DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; and congressional correspondence.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s complete military records were either lost or destroyed.  The following information is extracted from partially reconstructed records.  The applicant entered active duty on 14 November 1943.  He was trained and served as an Aerial Gunner.  The applicant served an overseas tour in the European Theater of Operations from 7 September 1944 to 5 May 1945.  He was honorably discharged in the grade of staff sergeant on 6 July 1945.  The applicant was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 24 days of active duty service, of which 8 months and 23 days was foreign service.  His Report of Separation reflects award of the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with one silver and one bronze star, and the Good Conduct Medal.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends disapproval.  DPPPR states that the applicant’s initial request for the DFC was denied by SAFPC on 26 June 2001.  The applicant submitted a request for reconsideration in 2002, and it was denied on 31 October 2002.  The board judged that there was no distinctive heroism, which allowed the achievement to measure up to the DFC standards of “extraordinary,” and elected to award the applicant with the AM for heroism.  The AM elements were sent to the applicant’s congressional representative for presentation.  The applicant returned the elements, stating that the AM was not the appropriate decoration for his actions.  The applicant claims that on 7 February 1945, while on a bombing mission, his aircraft was severely damaged by enemy flak.  The control cables were severed, and the aircraft could not be landed safely without the cables controlling the flaps.  He devised a new cable out of safety wire, and then reinforced it with cable from the emergency rations flotation device.  The aircraft was safely landed at their home base in Italy.  Had he not devised a temporary cable, the crew might have had to bail out over enemy territory.  The grounds maintenance crew recommended him for award of the DFC but, not knowing his name, inadvertently recommended the flight Engineer, who was awarded the DFC for the applicant’s actions. 

DPPPR states the DFC is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in flight.  The AM is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by heroic or meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial flight.

DPPPR states that if the Board decides to award the applicant the DFC for actions performed on 7 February 1945, the AM will need to be revoked.  If the Board decides not to award the DFC, the AM awarded in 2002 needs to be changed to the AM with fourth oak leaf cluster.  DPPPR states the applicant is entitled to the American Campaign Medal and World War II Victory Medal.  Any additional corrections will be held in abeyance until the AM versus DFC for 7 February 1945 issue is resolved.  The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force Evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 December 2003, 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.  After a thorough review of the available records, we found no evidence that the applicant is eligible for the award of the DFC.  We note the applicant’s assertion that he was nominated for the DFC and that the flight engineer aboard his aircraft inadvertently received the award instead.  We have reviewed the supporting statement from the aircraft’s pilot and note that he was not the approval authority for the DFC.  According to the evidence presented, we agree with the opinion from the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant’s achievement does not meet the requirements for the award of a DFC.  There is no indication in his records that he was recommended for, or awarded, the DFC.  We note that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, instead, awarded the applicant the AM for his acts of heroism and we are unpersuaded by the evidence presented that he was not afforded proper and fitting relief by their action.  The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is noted and the recommendation to deny the requested relief in no way diminishes the high regard we have for his service.  Nevertheless, in view of the above, we find no basis to favorably consider this application. 

__________________________________________________________________

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 12 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03307 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Sep 03.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 16 Dec 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.