RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-03533
								INDEX CODE:  100.00
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 08.  His father’s records be corrected to reflect award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for his participation in the “Round the World Flight” in July 1938.

2.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 08.  His father’s records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Medal (AM) for his participation in a flight from 26 Jun 40 to 4 Jul 40.

3.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 08.  His father’s records be corrected to reflect award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 08.  There is a possibility that an error or injustice was done in not awarding his father the DFC for his participation in the historic “Round the World Flight” in July 1938 with XXXX.  A more restrictive criterion was used in considering his father for award of the DFC than had been used in considering previous awardees under similar circumstances.  Captain XXXX was awarded the DFC for his 20-21 May 27 flight from New York to Paris.

2.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 08.  The AM was not established until May 1942 and he believes the AM criteria should be applied retroactively to his father’s flight.  There was something special concerning the flight in Jul 40, which his father participated, as a brigadier general recognized his father’s efforts as a navigator on that flight.

3.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Oct 08.  His father was killed in June 1944.  The ARCOM was created as a ribbon in December 1945 and was awarded for commendations received after 6 Dec 41.  His father received a commendation for work done in 1943.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits copies of documents from his deceased father’s available military personnel records; page three of AR 600-8-22, a copy of his father’s Death Certificate, and various documents associated with his request.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s father was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army on 28 Jun 29.  He served as the navigator-co pilot on the “Round the World Flight” by XXXXX in 1938.  He served in the Army Air Corps until 19 Jun 44, when he was killed in an aircraft accident.

On 11 Jun 07, AFPC/DPPPR determined the applicant’s father’s entitlement to the European-African-Middle Eastern Medal.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial.  DPSIDR notes the War Department letter signed by General XXXX, indicating that after careful consideration, it is believed the former servicemember is not eligible to receive the DFC for participation in the XXXX “Round the World Flight”.  General XXXX also states the member was on ordinary leave of absence during the flight.  He received a Letter of Commendation (LOC) for his participation in the historic flight while being on leave.

There was no official documentation located to verify the former servicemember was recommended for or awarded the AM or the ARCOM.  No other Air Force decorations were verified.

The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was unable to locate or verify any change in Army regulations dated 10 Aug 38, that was relevant to 10 Jul - 14 Jul 38 flight.  If that regulation cannot be found and its relevance to the flight verified, he requests that it not be considered in this case.  

General XXXX stated in documents that were damaged in the fire at the NPRC, the former servicemember is not eligible to receive the DFC for his participation in the “Round the World Flight” due to a change in Army Regulations dated 10 Aug 38.  

Further, the former member was on ordinary leave of absence.  It goes on to say that the War Department approved him to participate as a passenger and, as such, the duties he performed are not considered incident to his position as an officer.

It further states that although the former member is not eligible under Army Regulations, the achievement of the flight merits the award of the DFC, and that a commendation is proposed to be awarded for his navigational skill in that flight

His father served in the Army Air Corps and not in the Army.

There have been several noteworthy recipients of the DFC.  Many people with extraordinary achievements, in order to receive the award of the DFC, have received de-facto exceptions to rules and regulations of the DFC.  Those people include Orville Wright, Wilbur Wright, and Eugene Ely, who were all civilians.  There were also many other civilians, Reservists, and foreigners who were awarded the DFC.

His father was recommended for award of the DFC.  In a letter from General XXXXX that indicates his father was on an ordinary leave of absence, he contends that this was not the case and believes it was some kind of a special arrangement.

His father received a LOC for his participation in the flight flown on 4 Jul 40 through 26 Jul 40.  The AM was retroactive to 8 Sep 39, and the LOC his father was awarded should be upgraded to the AM.  The award criteria for the AM states that personnel can be awarded the AM for combat and also during peacetime.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not 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 note the evidence of record shows the applicant’s father was recommended for award of the DFC for his participation in the historic “Round the World Flight” with XXXX by his commanding officer.  The recommendation was reviewed by the chain of command as well as Congressional members at the time, and they did not support award of the DFC and instead awarded him a Letter of Commendation.  Further, during the time of the aforementioned mission, the Commanding General and the Congressional members involved in the decision to recognize the applicant’s father were familiar with the mission at hand and were in the best position to render a decision on the appropriate level of recognition based on their knowledge of all the facts and circumstances involved, and we are not persuaded the earlier decision should be overturned 70 years later as an exception to policy.  Also, we believe the requested relief is outside this Board’s purview, and therefore recommend he seek an exception to policy through Congressional channels.  It also appears the applicant has not exhausted all of the administrative remedies available to him and the Board is persuaded the best avenue to submit the request would be through his Congressman, under the provisions of the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act.  In regard to the AM, there is no evidence the mission for which the AM is requested involved actual combat in support of military operations.  In regard to the applicant’s request that his father’s records be corrected to reflect award of the ARCOM, we note, that based on the Army Air Force Transfer Agreement of 1948, this Board would consider all requests for aerial decorations, i.e., the AM and DFC, submitted by former Army Air Corps members.  The Army retained the authority to act on and process all recommendations for decorations, except the DFC and the AM prior to 1 Jul 48 for Army and Air Force personnel serving during World War II.  As such, since the Army Commendation Medal is not an aerial decoration, this part of the requested relief should be addressed by the Department of the Army.  Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of persuasive 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 issue(s) 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 Docket Number BC-2008-03533 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 17 Sep 08, 9 Oct 08, and 
		29 Oct 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Father’s Available 
				 Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 14 Nov 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Dec 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jan 08, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair