RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01885 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have received the DFC for sustained operational activities during World War II. He completed 25 bomber missions with distinction and met the criteria for award of the DFC based on the Air Force Historical Research Agency (AFHRA) document, “Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal Criteria in the Army Air Forces in World War II.” On his 29th mission, the aircraft he was in crashed and his back was broken. He received the Purple Heart (PH) for the injuries incurred. It was his understanding at the time that 30 missions were required for the DFC so he never pursued the DFC especially since there was a lot of inconsistency in award criteria for the DFC during the war. In support of the request the applicant provides a news article and paper he authored. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired on 1 Jan 1974. He was a co-pilot of a B-24 with the 858th Bombardment Squadron, 492nd Bombardment Group, 2nd Air Division, Eighth Air Force. He served on active duty for 30 years, 10 months and 17 days. ? The DFC may be awarded to any persons who after 6 Apr 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. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends disapproval. There is no official documentation in the applicant’s record to verify recommendation for award of the DFC. While the applicant states he completed 25 bomber missions with distinction, the Army Assistant, Chief of Air Staff for Plans dispatched guidance on behalf of the commanding General, Army Air Forces on 24 Jun 1944, stating that the DFC is prohibited from being awarded on a “mechanical basis” and that each award should be worthy of the act performed. The applicant has not provided a proposed citation, inclusive period of the act/achievement, or a recommendation from someone, preferably who has firsthand knowledge of the applicant’s act/achievement. Additionally, this request is untimely, memories have faded, and records are no longer available to substantiate information. The applicant has not provided justification or supporting documentation that reflects he was eligible for award of the DFC nor did the applicant provide evidence of an error or injustice. To grant relief would be contrary to the eligibility criteria established by the War Department, the Department of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force. At the conclusion of the Board, DPSID will administratively correct the applicant’s records to show award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with four Bronze Service Stars and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross (RVNGC) with Palm. The complete DPSID advisory, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFHRA/RSA recommends disapproval. The applicant’s assumption that the DFC was awarded after 30 combat missions is incorrect. The 2nd Air Division, of which the veteran was a member, expected its crewmembers to complete 35 missions before being considered a graduate of an operational tour. In order to recognize the crewmembers with appropriate awards, the paperwork process was to begin after a crewmember completed 30 missions so that the award usually a DFC for sustained operational performance would be available for presentation to the individual prior to leaving the crewmember’s station for home or for other duties as assigned. This is why, after crashing on his 29th combat mission, the veteran was not recognized with a DFC. Evidently, his 492nd Bombardment Group commander held to the 26 Feb 1945 2nd Air Division directive that potential awardees had to complete 30 combat missions before an award submission. The veteran did not complete the 30 combat missions, therefore, there was no DFC award submission made. With six more combat missions to go before completing his combat tour, and the war ending before he could rejoin his unit for flying duties, it is apparent that his organization made the decision not to submit him for the DFC. After 57 years, RSA cannot second guess his unit commander’s decision. The complete RSA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 Aug 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). To date, a response has not been received. _________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. His personal sacrifice and unselfish service to his country is noted and our decision in no way lessens our regard for his service; however, without sufficient documentation to substantiate award of the DFC, we are unable to verify his entitlement to the award. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-01885 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 2012 [sic], w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Military Service Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 21 Jun 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFHRA/RSA, dated 3 Jul 2013, w/atch. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 2013, w/atch. 1 2