RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03790
		INDEX CODE:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal (SWASM), with one oak leaf cluster. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was deployed to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for two tours totaling 180 days.

In support of his request, the applicant provided copies of a letter of appreciation, his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a Certificate of Appreciation.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A1.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Oct 80.  Prior to the matter under review, he was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant.

A certificate for award of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), Third Oak Leaf Cluster (3OLC), dated 29 Nov 99, indicates that the applicant was awarded the AFAM (3OLC) for outstanding achievement during the period 8 Jun 98 to 8 Oct 98, as Chief, Environmental Flight, ----H Civil Engineer Squadron (Provisional), ----th Air Base Group, ----, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH.

On 31 Oct 00, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired for length of service, effective 1 Nov 00.  He was credited with 20 years and 21 days of active duty service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  

By application, dated 22 Nov 02, the applicant requested that his place of entry on active duty be changed from Biloxi, Mississippi, to Chicago, Illinois (Exhibit A2).  By letter, dated 13 Feb 03, AFPC/DPPRSP (Separations Branch) notified the applicant that his request had been resolved administratively (Exhibit B).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial noting that the applicant provided an alleged letter of appreciation from the 75th Services Squadron Commander, but it was undated and mentioned no dates for deployment to Kuwait or reason for deployment.  He also provided a locally produced Certificate of Appreciation, dated 15 Jan 95, and signed by an unidentified commander, for assistance to the 75th Fighter Squadron in Kuwait.  Again, there were no inclusive dates.  However, the certificate did mention Operations VIGILANT WARRIOR and SOUTHERN WATCH.  Operation VIGILANT WARRIOR was not a designated operation for which a medal was awarded.  

According to AFPC/DPPPR, the SWASM was awarded for participation in Operation DESERT SHIELD, DESERT STORM, and DESERT CALM in the Persian Gulf for the period 2 Aug 90 to 30 Nov 95 and, Operation PROVIDE COMFORT for the period 5 Apr 91 to 31 Dec 96 (for Turkey and Northern Iraq, only).  The SWASM has bronze service stars, not oak leaf clusters, one for each of the three campaigns in the Persian Gulf.  Participants in Operation SOUTHERN WATCH received the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for deployment to the Persian Gulf from 1 Dec 95 to a date to be determined.

AFPC/DPPPR indicated that, on 16 Dec 02, their office informed the applicant that additional documentation was necessary to substantiate his claim.  He was asked to provide a copy of the temporary duty (TDY) orders and travel vouchers for his TDYs overseas.  He did not respond.

In AFPC/DPPPR's view, the applicant did not provide any of the necessary official documentation needed to substantiate his claim.  Without the TDY orders, showing he was deployed in support of a designated operation, or his travel vouchers, showing he was in one of the named locations for 30 days, they could not verify the applicant’s eligibility for any award.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 21 Feb 03 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR).  No evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that the applicant met the established criteria for award of the Southwest Asia Service Medal.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  We note the applicant's request that his place of entry on active duty be changed from Biloxi, Mississippi, to Chicago, Illinois, has been corrected administratively.  Therefore, no further action by this Board is necessary.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-03790 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 21 Nov 02 and 22 Nov 02,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 4 Feb 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Feb 03.