RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00244 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His father be awarded the following awards: Good Conduct Medal (GCM); Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His father served 11 years in the military honorably and faithfully without disciplinary infractions or court-martial offenses. He flew 68 combat missions and supported Utah Beach on D-Day which had 200 casualties and a landing of 23,250 troops. On the third day of the invasion, his father successfully landed his B-26 on the cliffs of Normandy on a temporary field avoiding a crash and saving his crew. He has pieced the accounts together from his father’s files and stories told by fellow pilots. He wants his father’s complete legacy and distinction to be known to his grandchildren and great grandchildren. His father would have been awarded the two medals but the administrative staff was stretched too thin with so many millions of service people at the time. It was an oversight. The Board should consider it in the interest of justice to consider the applicant’s untimely requests as his father never talked about his experiences. He found the legacy in the files stored away. A book he read about World War II (WWII) said most pilots who flew over 25 missions received the DFC, his father flew 68 missions. In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his father’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States; WD AGO Form 55, Honorable Discharge Certificate; WD-AGO Form 53-98, Military Record and Report of Separation Certificate of Service, and various other documents associated with his requests. In a letter dated 4 Jun 14, the applicant states his father’s record will bear out his claim that he flew 68 combat missions. A pilot who flew with his father told him that he was given credit for 72 missions and his father had flown more missions than him. He has the “Achtung Minen” sign his father took from the Normandy cliff during the emergency landing. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The decedent’s Enlisted Record reflects he enlisted in the U.S. Army on 28 May 42 and was discharged on 30 Sep 43. He was credited with one year, four months and three days of service. His record reflects that he was recommended for the GCM. The decedent’s WD AGO Form 53-98 reflects he was a member of the Army Air Corps from 1 Oct 43 to 19 Apr 46. According to the decedent’s DD Form 214, he served on active duty in the Air Force from 31 Jul 46 to 3 Aug 54. The GCM is awarded to enlisted members who honorably completed three continuous years of active military service subsequent to 26 Aug 40, and who are recommended by their commanding officers for exemplary behavior, efficiency and fidelity. During wartime, the GCM may be awarded on completion of one year of continuous service rather than three. The DFC may be awarded to any persons who after 6 Apr 17 while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Armed Forces distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty. The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances. Awards will be made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained operational activities against an armed enemy. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the GCM. The GCM can only be awarded to enlisted personnel who meet the criteria for the award. The decedent was an officer; therefore, he is ineligible for award of the GCM. DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the DFC. There is no evidence in the decedent’s record, nor did the Next of Kin (NOK) present any to support award of the DFC; therefore, there is insufficient documentation to reasonably consider the request. Furthermore, the revised Policy for Award of the DFC 14 August 1943 memorandum to theater commanders states in order to justify an award of the DFC for heroism, the heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action in the face of great danger above and beyond the line of duty while participating in aerial flight. To warrant an award of the DFC for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight, the results accomplished must be so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set him apart from his comrades who have not been so recognized. Under the policy stated above, no award of the DFC will be made on the basis of hours or missions. The basis for the NOK’s request is not a specific act of heroism or extraordinary achievement but based on the number of missions. Nonetheless, should the Board believe the merits of the case and overlook the lack of timeliness of the submission, the NOK will need to submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement, preferably from someone within the decedent’s chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation with inclusive dates and a summary of his single act of heroism or extraordinary achievement and eyewitness statements in order to reasonably consider the request. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DODM 1348.33, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFHRA/RS recommends approval for award of the GCM. The authority for award of the GCM was announced by Executive Order and published in Circular Number 188, War Department, 5 Sep 42. GCM and clasps may be awarded only to enlisted men recommended by their immediate commanding officers. A three year period of continuous active federal enlisted service with character excellent terminating on or after 28 Jun 41 was required. However, after the U.S. entered the war, the policy was changed to one year of exemplary, efficient and fidelity service after 7 Dec 41. This one year policy ended on 2 Mar 46. Since the decedent served for over one year in the Enlisted Reserve Corps after 7 Dec 41, he technically met the requirements bestowed a GCM. On 30 Sep 43, the decedent was honorably discharged from military service to accept his commission as a second lieutenant and his Enlisted Record shows he completed one year, four months and three days of service. Under this same form in the Remarks section, it states the decedent is “Recommended for Good Conduct Medal.” AFHRA/RS recommends denial of the applicant’s request his father be awarded the DFC and agrees with the rationale of DPSID. A total of 385 aircrew members passed through the 575th Bombardment Group during its combat missions in WWII. Of the 385 aircrew members, a total of 60 DFCs were awarded. As an officer aircrew member in the 575th, there was a 77 percent chance of not being recognized with an award of the DFC. Unfortunately, the decedent was a part of the 77 percent. After comparing the list of DFC award winners versus the crewmembers that the decedent flew with, every pilot he flew as co-pilot received a DFC. The one mitigating claim that might have found a favorable consideration for the DFC was the decedent’s action in saving an aircraft when forced to land in newly won Allied territory as attributed to one of the gunners that the decedent flew with. However, a thorough review of all missions noted that list the decedent participating in fail to mention any such landing. Therefore, AFHRA/RS could not find any specific reason why the decedent should have been considered for award of the DFC. A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation is at Exhibit D. SAFPC concurs with the recommendation of AFHRA for award of the GCM and concurs with the recommendation of DPSID and AFHRA for disapproval for award of the DFC. At the time of the decedent’s service in the European Theater of Operations, the DFC was no longer being awarded based upon the number of missions or hours flown. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence (recommendation, witnesses, etc.) to support awarding the DFC for an individual act of heroism. A complete copy of the SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFHRA admits they missed finding records on four of his father’s missions, one of those missing recorded missions is the one where his father landed on the cliffs of Normandy at Omaha Beach, the heroics of which are worthy of the DFC. The AFHRA states his father had to fly 65 combat missions before being eligible to rotate home, yet he is credited with flying 67 missions. The extra missions seem indicative of a highly heroic person, the baseline used for determining who should receive the DFC. A copy of the AGO Form 66-2, AAF Officers Qualification Record, reflects his father flew a total of 250 combat hours and 67 missions. The AFHRA notes that every pilot his father flew combat missions with received the DFC. The definition of a co-pilot is always sitting on the right, next to the pilot. They assist the captain and play a crucial role in navigating a safe ride. Perhaps there is a common thread and it is time to correct an oversight caused by the “fog of war?” In further support of his requests, the applicant provides a flash drive of an interview his father conducted in 1997. He references names of individuals and perhaps their flying records can be researched to provide the specific date of his father’s Normandy landing. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. 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 for award of the DFC. While the interview his father conducted in 1997 is noted, he has not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPR’s and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 3. Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant partial relief. We note that DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the GCM to his father; however, after carefully reviewing the evidence, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of AFHRA/RS and SAFPC and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the GCM should be reflected in the decedent’s records. Therefore, we recommend the decedent’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the DECEDENT be corrected to show that his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, issued in conjunction with his discharge on 3 Aug 54, be amended in Item 27, Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign ribbons Awarded or Authorized, to include the Good Conduct Medal. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2014-00244 in Executive Session on 10 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00244 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 2 Jun 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 3 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Memorandum, SAFPC, undated, with atchs. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 15. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 May 15, w/atchs.