RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02315
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Southeast Asia Medal.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

“I was there.”  His DD Form 214 indicates he served in Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 28 Jan 85.  He was released from active duty under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Early Release Program-Special Separation Benefit) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve on 25 Jan 95.  He had completed a total of 9 years, 11 months and 28 days and was serving in the grade of sergeant (E-4) at the time of separation.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 reveals that he received the following decorations:  Air Force Outstanding Unit Award, with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs); Air Force Good Conduct Medal, with 1 OLC; National Defense Service Medal; Air Force Longevity Service Award Ribbon, with 1 OLC; Noncommissioned Officer Professional Military Education Graduation Ribbon; Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon; and, the Air Force Training Ribbon.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied.  On 7 Aug 02, HQ AFPC/DPPPR notified the applicant that there is no “Southeast Asia Medal” and that they believed he meant the “Southwest Asia Service Medal.”  He was asked to provide additional documentation to support his request; however, he did not respond to their request.

HQ AFPC/DPPPR states that the applicant did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claim, and there is no indication in his records that he was deployed in direct support of Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 contains the following in Item 18, Remarks, “Served 2 Aug 90 to 25 Jan 95 in Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM.”  However, HQ AFPC/DPPPR states that this does not mean he was deployed to the Persian Gulf, merely that he was on Active Duty during this period.  The applicant received the National Defense Service Medal for this period of service.  Therefore, HQ AFPC/DPPPR is unable to verify the applicant’s eligibility for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal or any other “campaign medal.”

The HQ AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 4 October 2002 for review and response.  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 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.  The applicant has provided no evidence to indicate he was deployed in direct support of Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM.  We note that the applicant was asked to provide additional information that would indicate his deployment, but he has failed to do so.  Absent sufficient documentation to support his eligibility for award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal, 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 02‑02315 in Executive Session on 12 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 30 Sep 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Oct 02.