RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2021-02381

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED:  YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Correct military record to upgrade one or all awarded Air Medals to the Silver Star.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He is making this request to correct injustices that occurred to him in World War II, specifically, he believes he should have been awarded the Silver Star for 3 of the 46 combat missions he flew.  Three times he was put in for and told he would receive the Silver Star, and three times it did not happen.  For most of his life, he was unaware of why the recommendations were not acted on or downgraded to Air Medal because the documentation was not available for his review.  It was not until 2019, when his son researched the records of his fellow crewmembers, that he learned three injustices, and one administrative error, had taken place.

The first Silver Star recommendation was for a combat mission to Milne Bay, Papua, New Guinea, on 26 August 1942.  As the lead B-17 aircraft in a three-aircraft formation, they simultaneously attacked a well-armed five-ship Japanese naval convoy consisting of three cruisers and two gunboats, and all three of them were hit by anti-aircraft fire.  Even though they were in the same formation, attacking the same target simultaneously, they were awarded different medals.

The aircraft on their left wing, assigned to the 19th Bomb Group, was shot down and never dropped their bombs.  The second aircraft, also assigned to the 19th Bomb Group, was hit before dropping their bombs, was damaged, pulled off the attack, and departed the area.  Their aircraft alone stayed on the bomb run, engaged the target, and dropped four bombs before being hit, damaging their aircraft, killing their bombardier, and severely wounding our navigator.

It seems obvious that if any crewman flying on one of the three aircraft earned the Silver Star for gallantry in action, then all of the crewmen on all of the aircraft also earned it.  The fact that he was bypassed for any medal while others in adjacent aircraft received the Silver Star was wrong then, and is still wrong today.  When the Air Force Decorations Board awarded him the Air Medal in 2019 as a corrective action, it was just another injustice.  Surviving documentation shows the majority of the crews were recommended for the Distinguished Service Cross or the Silver Star, and for the most part, were awarded the Silver Star.  They were all in the same formation, there was no discernable difference in the demonstrated bravery or gallantry in action by one crew more than another, and the Silver Star should have been consistently awarded.

He was recommended for the Silver Star and given an Air Medal for his second mission on 30 October 1942, where he was flying as a B-17 co-pilot over Rabaul Harbor, New Britain, and attacked and sank a Japanese destroyer at night in poor weather and under intense anti-aircraft fire.  Supported by documents found at the National Archives, St. Louis, this mission directly compares to others flown by pilots in other squadrons, where the Silver Star was awarded for sinking a destroyer at night under less intense conditions and in less defended areas.  It is this inconsistency that he is appealing.

The third mission where he was recommended for the Silver Star and awarded an Air Medal instead occurred at Tonolei Harbor, Buin Faisi, Solomon Islands on 18 February 1943.  Flying as the B-17 pilot in command, he skip-bombed and sank an enemy troop transport/cargo ship of strategic importance to the enemy, at an unconventional altitude of 200 feet at night in the direct face of heavy anti-aircraft fire.  Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF) for three members of his crew provide evidence of an administrative error which resulted in the award of the Air Medal instead of the Silver Star earned.  Records indicate an administrative error by the officer in charge of awards and decorations for the 63rd Bomb Squadron, 43rd Bomb Group mistakenly certified award of an Air Medal for meritorious achievement on 11 March 1943, 25 days before the Silver Star was approved for gallantry in action on 5 April 1943.  No signatory evidence was found to indicate the Silver Star, which received four indorsements, was ever downgraded.  It is important to note the approval authorities downgraded the Silver Star to an Air Medal for the 30 October 1942 mission, but approved the Silver Star for the mission flown on 18 February 1943.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of documents from his personal official file, redacted crewmember OMPF records, Award Card Files, video testimony, and other documents related to his appeal.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a retired Air Force colonel (O-6).

On 12 May 1943, the applicant was awarded the Air Medal, for meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial flight over Rabaul Harbor, New Britain, on 30 October 1942.

On 15 May 1943, the applicant was awarded the Air Medal, first oak leaf cluster, for meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial raid over the Buin-Faisi area, Solomon Islands, on 18 February 1943.

On 28 February 1970, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with Reason and Authority:  AFM 35-7, Mandatory Retirement (SDN: 70F), and credited with 28 years, 6 months, 13 days active service.

On 1 March 1970, the applicant retired.

On 21 November 2019, the applicant was awarded the Air Medal, second oak leaf cluster, for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight as a B-17E co-pilot at Milne Bay, New Guinea on 26 August 1942.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

Air Force Manual 36-2806, Awards and Memorialization Program.   According to paragraph A2.5, the Silver Star was established by an act of Congress on 9 July 1919 and 10 U.S.C. § 9276.  The medal is awarded to any person, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force, who distinguish himself or herself by gallantry in action that does not warrant the Medal of Honor or Air Force Cross under any of the following circumstances: (1) While engaged in an action against an enemy of the U.S; (1)  While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or (3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the U.S. is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the Air Force Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.  

According to paragraph A2.12, the Air Medal was authorized by Executive Order 9158, 11 May 1942, as amended by Executive Order 9242-A, 11 September 1942.  The medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the Air Force, distinguishes himself or herself by meritorious achievement while participating in an aerial flight.  The medal may be awarded for combat or non-combat action in recognition of single acts of valor, heroism, or merit while participating in an aerial Flight.  Both heroism and achievement are entirely distinctive, involving operations that are not routine.  The Air Medal is not awarded for sustained operational activities and flights. The required achievement to warrant award of the Air Medal is less than that required for the Distinguished Flying Cross, and is accomplished with distinction above and beyond that expected of professional Airmen.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

SAF/MRBP recommends denying the application.  The evidence provided is not sufficient to conclude the 2019 Air Force Decorations Board decision represents an error or injustice.  Other than his video testimonials and an uncorroborated assertion that one of the Silver Star recommendations was not downgraded, the applicant has provided no newly discovered relevant evidence.

On 19 October 2019, a United States Senator referred a request for the applicant to be awarded the Silver Star, for the three missions noted in his application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), to the Department of the Air Force under Title 10, United States Code, Section 1130 (10 U.S.C. § 1130), which allows a member of Congress to submit a recommendation for a decoration or upgrade of a decoration to a service secretary for review and consideration outside time limits prescribed by statute or regulations.  The request consisted of a personal statement from the applicant and the recommending official (the applicant’s son), the applicant’s military personnel records, excerpts from the military personnel records of several now-deceased service members who served in the Pacific Area of Operations during World War II, and various unofficial sources of information.

On 14 November 2019, the Air Force Decorations Board adjudicated the applicant’s request for award upgrade.  After a thorough review of the applicant’s complete military personnel record, and more than 200 pages of documentary evidence provided in support of his request, the Board determined the evidence was not sufficient to conclude the applicant should have been recognized with the Silver Star for any of the three missions.  

The Air Force Decorations Board thoroughly considered the applicant’s argument that the recognition he did receive was not consistent with that received by other crew members flying similar missions.  While the applicant provided a substantial amount of documentary evidence in support of his request, the Air Force Decorations Board was not convinced his comparative analysis was sufficient to determine, more than 75 years after the events in question, that he should have been awarded the Silver Star for the 30 October 1942 and 18 February 1943 missions.  The Air Force Decorations Board did determine he should have been awarded the Air Medal for the 26 August 1942 mission.

The applicant provided no new direct evidence to the AFBCMR that was not considered by the Air Force Decorations Board.  The only new evidence provided, not considered by the Air Force Decorations Board, is the three video testimonials, which alone are not sufficient to conclude the board’s decision represents an error or injustice.  Also noted is the applicant’s new argument that there is no documentary evidence that his Silver Star recommendation for the 18 February 1943 mission was downgraded; however, the absence of documentation alone is not sufficient to conclude that an action constitutes an error or injustice.  The presumption of regularity dictates that, without evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed the Silver Star recommendation was disapproved and downgraded to the Air Medal that was awarded the applicant for this mission.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 22 December 2021 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 18 January 2022.  In his 12-page response, the applicant contended he was disappointed with the decision of the Air Force Decorations Board in 2019 and disagreed with the recommendations forwarded to the AFBCMR by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council via advisory opinion.  Their recommendation reflects a lack of understanding of the evidence.  The remarks in the advisory do not refute his arguments and, in his opinion, their recommendation to the AFBCMR is yet another injustice.  In support of his response the applicant submitted the following: Tab A-Lost Silver Star Narrative Report, Tab B-NPRC Info SSgt P, Tab C-Time/Theater Air Medal Example, Tab D-Silver Star recommendation for K.M., Tab E-Form #1 Award initiation, New Info-DSC Award C.F.H., Next-of-Kin Letter to AFBCMR.   

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of SAF/MRBP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant’s service to this Nation is greatly appreciated.  However, he provided insufficient evidence to overturn the previous Air Force Decorations Board decision.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-02381 in Executive Session on 21 April 2022:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atch, dated 9 July 2021.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, SAF/MRBP, dated 22 December 2021.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 22 December 2021.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 18 January 2022.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.