RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02645 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her father’s records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The daughter of the former member states that two members of her father’s flight crew have been awarded the DFC years after separating from the Air Force. In support of her request, the applicant thru her Congressman provides copies of her father’s WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge; a honorable discharge certificate, a commendation letter, letters from a member of Congress and the Senate, a newspaper article, a privacy release form, and a letter from the family physician. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center; therefore, only a limited record exists. The available records reflect he served on active duty in the Army Air Corps from 4 Oct 43 to 28 Oct 45, and served in the European Theater from 14 Aug 44 to 16 Apr 45. At the time of his separation, his records reflect he was serving as an aerial gunner. The DFC was established by Congress on 2 Jul 26 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. DPSIDRA has verified the applicant’s entitlement to the World War II Victory Medal (WWIIVM) and will administratively correct his record to reflect this award. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. DPSIDRA states the next of kin (NOK) has not provided a recommendation from someone within the applicant’s chain of command who has firsthand knowledge of the incident, a proposed citation, chain of command endorsement(s), or eyewitness statement(s). Furthermore, there is no date or specific act/achievement for which the NOK is requesting the DFC for. DPSIDRA states the newspaper story the NOK provided shows that a World War II pilot received award of the DFC 55 years after the fact; however, the story states the decoration elements (certificate, citation, and special order) were located within that service member’s official military record. The elements were apparently placed in that service members record but he was unaware the decoration was awarded to him; it was not a new entitlement recently approved. The DFC may be awarded to any person who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the US Armed Forces, distinguished themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. Heroism or achievement must be entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine. The DFC is not awarded for sustained operational activities and flights. The timeline for submitting decorations to include the DFC is two years from the date of the act or achievement. However, under the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), (Section 526), which was enacted into law on 10 Feb 96, this timeline has now been waived. Before a request for an award can be considered, certain processing procedures must be followed. The recommendation must be made by someone, other than the member himself, preferably the commander or supervisor at the time of the act or achievement, with firsthand knowledge of member’s accomplishments. The applicant cannot recommend himself for award of the DFC. If someone has firsthand knowledge of the applicant’s accomplishments and achievements, she may act as the recommending official. The recommendation must include the name of the decoration (i.e. DFC), 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 are encouraged. Any statements from fellow comrades, eyewitness statements attesting to the act, sworn affidavits, and other documentation substantiating the recommendation should be included with the package. The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 30 Sep 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ 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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the records should be corrected to reflect award of the DFC. While we recognize the member’s extraordinary accomplishments in the defense of our Nation during wartime, we note there is no official documentation to indicate he was recommended for the DFC by anyone in his chain of command. Therefore, entitlement to the DFC cannot be verified. We note the news article provided as evidence that two members of her father’s crew have been awarded the DFC years after the fact. However, having no evidence to connect her father and the two service members mentioned in the news article, we are not inclined to recommend approval of the DFC. Should the applicant obtain evidence that could substantiate her father was also a part of the same crew, we would reconsider her request. The personal sacrifice the member endured for his country is noted, and our recommendation to deny the requested relief in no way diminishes the high regard we have for his service; however, based on the totality of the evidence presented, we are not persuaded the applicant has met her burden of establishing an error or injustice has occurred. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Aside from the administrative correction pertaining to his entitlement to the WWIIVM, we find no basis to recommend granting further relief in this case. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-02645 in Executive Session on 5 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2011-02645 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 9 Sep 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 11. Chair