RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00826
		INDEX CODE 107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from the Armed Forces, be amended to reflect service in Vietnam.  He be awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM).

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served in the Republic of Vietnam beginning January 1962.  He previously contacted the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO, who indicated that there is no documentation in his personnel records to indicate his service in Vietnam during 1962 or at Takhli Air Base, Thailand during 1961.  He had orders to report to Yamato Air Station, Japan to undergo processing for onward transportation.  However, this mission was classified and the final destination was not indicated.  His final destination was Takhli, Thailand, and he was under orders to provide security for US Air Force elements flying U-2 reconnaissance missions over China.  

His orders for service in Vietnam were to report to the 405th Fighter Wing for further transporation to Detachment 9.  His final destination was Bien Hoa Air Base, Republic of Vietnam, another classified mission, where he provided security for US Air Force elements.  Because of the classified nature of these missions, they were ordered not to discuss them at any time.  Forty years later, he continues to have a difficult time bringing closure to this part of his life and continues to have difficulty validating his service in Southeast Asia.  He understands that the AFEM is available to US service personnel who were in-country in Vietnam during 1 July 1958 through 3 July 1965.  He requests the Board, at the very least, correct his record by showing service in Vietnam so that he may apply for the AFEM and in a small way validate his service in Vietnam.  

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a personal statement; a copy of his DD Form 214; TDY Special Order Number TA-75; TDY Special Order Number TA-31; letters of appreciation; documents associated with a Defense Plan for the Republic of Vietnam. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic (E-1) on 2 February 1960.  Records reflect an overseas tour in Japan with assignment to the 421st Air Police Squadron, for the period 17 July 1960 - 7 July 1962.  On 27 November 1963, the applicant requested to be released from active duty on 14 January 1964 to attend the New York University School of Commerce.  On 14 January 1964, applicant was transferred to the Air Force Reserve for completion of his military service obligation.  He had served 3 years, 11 months and 13 days on active duty and 1 year, 11 months, and 20 days of foreign service. 

On 12 June 2002, during a records review, Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center identified an error in Item 26, Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commenation, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized, and issued the applicant a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, reflecting the award of the National Defense Service Medal. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied. DPPPR states that the first order, TA-75, states that the purpose of the TDY was for an exercise, not a deployment in direct support of operations in Vietnam.  DPPPR states that during the TDY period, the applicant’s medical records show that he was treated at Takhli RTAFB in Thailand on 2 March 1961.  In order to be eligible for the AFEM, the appliant had to be in Thailand for 30 consecutive days and since he did not provide a travel voucher for this TDY, DPPPR states they cannot verify he was in Thailand for the required period of time.  DPPPR states that the second order, TA-31, was for the purpose of performing a training mission with Detachment 9, 2nd ADVON; however, without a travel voucher they cannot verify the country to which the applicant was TDY to or the duration of the TDY.   

The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant submits a copy of Special Order TA-31 and explains that in January 1962 he was dispatched to Clark Air Base, PI, where they were issued ID cards different from the military ID cards.  He states he was transported to Bien Hoa Air Base in South Vietnam where his team was responsible for security of the cantonment area where members of the Mobil Strike Force were located.  Applicant states that his TDY was an approved emergency TDY and “Tools of the Trade” were authorized.  He is trying to put closure with his involvment in Vietnam and is asking that the Air Force help with his request and to acknowledge his time spent in Vietnam.

Applicant’s letter, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. 
_________________________________________________________________

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.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rational provided by the Air Force.  He has been asked to provide supporting documentation to substantiate his deployment to Vietnam in direct support of operations but has not responded.  Should the applicant provide more expansive evidence demonstrating his deployment to Vietnam or Thailand for 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days, we would be willing to reconsider his petition.  Absent such evidence, we must agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, 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 Docket Number 02-00826 in Executive Session on 21 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 6 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated w/atchs.