RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00338 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) for extraordinary achievement on 24 Mar 45 during World War II (WWII). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The combat mission for which the DFC was to be awarded occurred 37 days before the end of the war in Europe. The original recommendation for the DFC from the squadron commander was lost when the unit was transferred at the end of the war. Based on a letter of support from the applicant’s son, he believes his father and the other members of the crew should be recognized by awarding them the DFC. The crew was instrumental in earning the Presidential Unit Citation for the 483rd Bombardment Group (483BG); however, the squadron commander's staff failed to process and forward his, and the entire “Big Yank” bomber crew’s recommendation for their achievements during the 24 Mar 45 mission. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a statement from his son; a copy of his WD-AGO 53-98, Military Record and Report of Separation, issued in conjunction with his 1 Mar 46 release from active duty and other supporting documents. 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 in the European Theatre of Operation, as an armorer and gunner. He completed combat missions and participated in the N. Appennines, Central Europe, Po Valley and Rhineland campaigns. His WD AGO Form 53-98, reflects that he was credited with 6 months of continental service and 8 months and 17 days of foreign service. Subsequently, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve awaiting pay at age 60, effective 1 Dec 68. Through a Congressional Inquiry in 1996, the applicant requested award of the DFC. On 23 Aug 96, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) denied the applicant’s request for the DFC and downgraded it to an Air Medal (AM). The applicant’s record was administratively corrected to reflect award of the AM, with Two Oak Leaf Clusters (AM, w/2OLCs). The DFC was established by Congress on 2 July 1926 and is awarded for heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. The AM is awarded for heroic or meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial, stating, in part, no new evidence was presented to warrant reconsideration of the applicant’s AM, w/2OLCS for upgrade to the DFC. In conjunction with his application to the Board, the applicant submitted a copy of the supporting documents to his Member of Congress. In DPSIDR’s response to the congressional inquiry, on 15 Jan 10, they noted, the applicant was advised “approval of the DFC (for the mission on 24 Mar 45 that he received the AM, w/2OLCs) would constitute dual recognition.” Although it did not appear the applicant was requesting the AM be upgraded to the DFC, he was informed that there was no additional documentation which would constitute award of, consideration for, or upgrade to the DFC. The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Apr 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not filed within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or could have been discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Although the applicant asserts a date of discovery which would, if applicable, make the application timely, the essential facts which give rise to the application were known to the applicant long before the asserted date of discovery. Knowledge of those facts constituted the date of discovery and the beginning of the three-year period for filing. Thus, the application is untimely. 3. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and we do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this application. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice that require resolution on its merits. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-00338 in Executive Session on 21 September 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 22 Mar 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 10.