RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02044 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His uncle be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor (MoH) and the Air Medal (AM) with two oak leaf clusters (OLC). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. On 15 June 1944, after being hit by German anti-aircraft fire, his deceased uncle heroically sacrificed his own life in order to prevent his aircraft from crash-landing into the populated areas of Dreux, France during World War II (WWII). 2. His uncle’s recently revealed extraordinary heroism during the Normandy Campaign of WWII is not detailed in the awards he originally received; Air Medal with one Oak Leaf Cluster (AM w/1OLC) and a Purple Heart (PH). 3. His uncle was buried as “Unknown X-121” by the French citizens; his identity and actions were unknown to authorities for quite some time. 4. Several sources of information suggest his uncle flew a combat mission on 14 June 1944. However, the 14 June 1944 sortie was not logged into his flight records. If he had been properly credited with an additional combat sortie, he might have been eligible for another OLC to his Air Medal. In support of his request, the applicant provides figures, references, primary source documents, extracts from “Unknown X- 121” report; a signed card from the Military Order of the Purple Heart; a historical timeline summarizing key events in the European Theater of Operations and a note regarding an error in the number of combat hours and sorties credited to his uncle. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 30 July 1942, the former member enlisted in the Air Corps. On 2 November 1943, he accepted a commission with the Army. On 5 February 1943, he was commissioned in the Army Air Corps. He served 2 years, 7 months and 13 days of total active service until he was killed in action (KIA) on 15 June 1944. The MoH is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who distinguishes himself/herself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty, as a member of the Air Force: 1) While engaged in an action against an enemy of the U.S., 2) While engaged in military operation involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or 3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the U.S. is not a belligerent party. The AM is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the armed forces of the U.S., subsequent to 8 September 1939, distinguishes himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial flight. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the MoH. MRBP states following a thorough review of the MoH submission and after lengthy discussion, the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB) determined the statements made by witnesses flying on the same mission and at the time of the incident do not definitively corroborate the statements of the eyewitnesses on the ground and there was not clear and convincing evidence of a valorous act that rises to the level of the MoH. The AFDB members believed that much of the evidence provided was based on hearsay and supposition. Further, there is no evidence from any radio contacts that his uncle intentionally guided his aircraft away from the city of Dreux or was actually in control of the aircraft. The AFDB also discussed the merits of his act in consideration of a lesser decoration such as the Distinguished Flying Cross or the AM. The AFDB determined that due to the lack of conclusive verification such as a radio call or verification that he was controlling his P-38, these decorations were not appropriate based on criteria for decorations at the time of this event. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to award his uncle the MoH and AM w/2OLCs. DPSIDRA states the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) indicates the applicant’s uncle received award of the PH and the AM with one Oak Leaf Cluster. Without his uncle’s record or a copy of the decoration elements, they are unable to verify if he received the AM w/1OLC or any other decoration for his actions on 15 January 1944. Additionally, since his uncle’s record is unavailable, they are unable to verify if the award of the AM w/1OLC was actually made. The applicant has not provided any official documentation substantiating award of the AM w/1OLC was made in order for his uncle to be eligible for possible entitlement to an additional OLC to the AM. Furthermore, the applicant has not submitted his request in regard to the AM w/2OLC in accordance with (IAW) the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Rules for consideration as the newly provided information does not substantiate entitlement. The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AF/A3O-AT agrees with the recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDRA. A3O- AT states the documents provided by the applicant confirm his uncle did fly 19 combat sorties from 4 May 1944 to 15 June 1945. The complete A3O-AT evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 and 9 Aug 11 for review and comment with 15 days (Exhibit F and G). As of this date, this office has not received a 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 an error or injustice. It should be noted that this Board does not have the authority to award the MOH. However, if the evidence warrants, we can make a recommendation to the approving authority for consideration of the MoH. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded his uncle should be recommended for award of the MOH. We note the Air Force Decorations Board (AFDB) properly considered his uncle for award of the MOH and discussed his uncle’s act in consideration of a lesser decoration; however, based on a lack of clear and convincing evidence, the AFDB recommended disapproval. As such, we believe SAF/MRBP has adequately addressed the applicant’s contentions and we find no basis to recommend the applicant’s uncle for award of the MOH. Regarding the applicant’s request that his uncle be awarded the Air Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters (AM w/2OLCs), based on the NPRC records it appears his uncle was awarded the AM w/1OLC; however, as previously stated by DPSIDRA, the applicant has not provided any official documentation to substantiate the award of the AM w/1OLC was actually made in order for his uncle to be eligible for possible entitlement to an additional OLC. Moreover, the applicant has not submitted his request in accordance with (IAW) the 1996 NDAA Rules for consideration. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDRA and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that his uncle has suffered either an error or an injustice. The personal sacrifice his uncle endured for his country is noted and our decision in no way diminishes the high regard we have for his service; however, insufficient documentary evidence has been presented to warrant recommending him for the AM w/2 OLC. Should the applicant secure copies of the AM decoration elements and submit his request IAW with the NDAA rules, we would be willing to reconsider his request. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETREMINES 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- 2010-02044 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02044 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Available Military Records. Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP, Letter, dated 24 Jun 11. Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIDRA, Letter, dated 25 Jul 11. Exhibit E. HQ USAF/A3O-AT, Letter, undated. Exhibit F. SAF/MRBC, Letter, 2 Aug 11. Exhibit G. SAF/MRBC, Letter, 9 Aug 11.