RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03796
		INDEX NUMBER: 107.00

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 Jun 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Silver Star (SS) for his actions during a bombing raid to a strategic target at Hamburg, Germany, on 30 October 1944.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The interrogating intelligence officer at the de-briefing of the mission proposed the SS; however, he never heard anything further.  Based on the commander’s reputation of favoring only pilots for higher decorations, and since he was a navigator, the SS proposal was likely ignored or never considered.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits an affidavit and narrative recommendation for award of the SS from the former group commander indicating that based on the applicant’s actions during the subject mission, he should have been awarded the SS.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a former Army Air Corps member who served on active duty from 22 April 1944 to 30 September 1945.  During the period 21 July 1944 through 14 March 1945, he was assigned to the 67th Bombardment Squadron in England as a B-24 navigator and completed 35 combat missions.

On 24 April 2001, the Board favorably considered applicant’s request to be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and fifth and sixth oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal for flying 10 combat missions over the required 25 missions.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that applicant has already received a decoration in recognition of his service during World War II.  An individual cannot receive two decorations for the same actions/period of time as this would constitute dual recognition.  There is no indication in his records, and he has not provided any documentation, showing that a recommendation for the SS was submitted.

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Contrary to the evaluation, there are numerous other combat instances where multiple awards have been made for actions in the same period of time to other combat aviators for individual acts of heroism, bravery, and leadership.  Further, he provides a recommendation from the next higher official in his former chain of command.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  The affidavit and narrative recommendation for award of the SS from the applicant’s former group commander are duly noted; however, insufficient corroborative evidence has been presented to substantiate that the SS recommendation would have been approved.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2004-03796 in Executive Session on 2 March 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 22 Dec 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jan 05.