RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-03620 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) or appropriate Air Force decoration for his act of valor he performed while serving as a turret gunner and aerial engineer aboard a B-17 bomber during World War II (WWII). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While on a bombing mission in mid-June 1943, he saved his aircraft and crew by manually releasing a bomb he found lying on the bomb bay doors that had fallen off the rack and dislodged from a safety device. The incident was either not reported or not recognized at the time; however, after reading of similar incidents wherein individuals were awarded medals for saving their plane and crew by releasing hung, lodged, and/or fused bombs, his family convinced him to pursue correction of his records based on an injustice. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of a witness statement; discharge document; pictures of his aircraft and crew; list of missions; letters to congressional members; and articles of two other service members who received medals for similar actions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Army Air Corps who served on active duty from 16 November 1941 to 26 May 1945. The applicant’s records are believed to have been destroyed by the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri; therefore, the available facts are extracted from the limited service records provided by the applicant. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states due to the lack of sufficient documentation and information per the 1966 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), they must recommend disapproval of the applicant’s request. DPSIDR indicates that any recommendation for decorations is submitted on an individual basis and is a voluntary act on the part of the recommending official. Under the 1996 NDAA, veterans may be recommended for a decoration by complying with the following procedures; however, the written decoration recommendation must meet two criteria: 1) be made by someone, other than the member himself, in the chain of command at the time of the incident, and who has firsthand knowledge of the acts or achievement; 2) be submitted through a congressional member who can ask a military service to review a proposal for a decoration based on the merits of the proposal and the award criteria in existence when the event occurred. In addition, the recommendation must include the name of the decoration, reason for the recognition (heroism, achievement, or meritorious service), inclusive dates of the act, and a narrative description of the act. The recommending official must sign the recommendation. Also a proposed citation is required and any chain of command endorsements (at the time of the act or service) are required. Any statements from fellow comrades, eyewitness statements attesting to the act, sworn affidavits, and other documentation substantiating the recommendation should be included in the package. The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the Air Force advisory opinion, the applicant submits statements from two members of his chain of command and a list of crew members. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an injustice. The applicant asserts that his action during a bombing mission in 1943 deserves recognition by award of an appropriate Air Force decoration. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides accounts of others being recognized for similar events. He also provides statements from two officers that state they were in his chain of command at the time and one of the officers recommends the applicant for award of the DFC. After considering the complete evidence of record, to include the applicant’s submission, we find it insufficient to conclude that the failure to recognize the applicant’s actions in 1943 by award of a decoration makes him the victim of error or injustice. In coming to our decision, we note that although he has provided letters from officers that state they were in his chain of command, neither the applicant or these officers have offered any explanation of why the applicant was not recognized at the time of his actions. It is also not clear from the evidence if either of these officers bore the responsibility of recommending the applicant for recognition at the time or if the authority and responsibility rested with others in the unit to which the applicant was assigned. While we do not question that the applicant’s actions as recounted rise to a level that could justify a decoration, the bigger question for this board is whether the lack of recognition for the applicant’s actions give rise to an error or injustice. Regrettably, we cannot conclude, based on the evidence that it does. Although there may have been others decorated for actions similar to the applicant’s, there are simply too many missing facts to use this as a basis for similarly recognizing the applicant. The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for our country is noted; however, based on the evidence before us, we must recommend that the requested relief be denied. _________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03620 in Executive Session on 28 June 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03620: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 25 Sep 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 30 Nov 10. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 10. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jan 11, w/atchs.