RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04598

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

   						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Her deceased husband, a former World War II B-17 Pilot, be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS:

The DFC was awarded after flying 25 missions.  Her husband completed 35 mission and was promised the DFC, but was unjustly denied the decoration.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former military member was initially commissioned into the US Army on 8 Feb 44.

On 30 Oct 45, the former military member was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 22 days of commissioned service. 

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, her husband:

a.  Flew 35 mission as a B-17 Pilot during World War II. 

b.  Passed away on 13 Mar 13.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The DFC may be awarded to any persons who, after 6 April 1917, while serving in any capacity with the United States 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.

In accordance with HQ Army Air Forces Memorandum, dated 21 Jan 45; under the revised policy for award of the DFC (Memorandum to all Theater Commanders, dated 14 Aug 43), the so-called “routine or score card” basis of award (awarding the DFC based upon the number of hours or missions flown) was officially prohibited as of 14 Aug 43.  

There is no official documentation in the former military member’s record nor did the applicant provide any documentation to verify he was recommended for or awarded the DFC.  While the applicant is requesting her husband be awarded the DFC based on the number of missions he flew between 1944 and 1945, in accordance with the Memorandum to Theater Commanders, dated 14 Aug 43, award of the DFC after 14 Aug 43 were solely based on a specific act or achievement.  

Recommend disapproval due to the fact the request was not filed in a timely manner.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  We concur with the recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP to disapprove award of the DFC on the basis of the rationale provided in its advisory dated 23 Sep 16. 

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 17 Oct 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude her spouse was the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

THE BOARD DETERMINES:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04598 in Executive Session on 15 Nov 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04598 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Former Member's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 23 Sep 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 Oct 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.