RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01599
		INDEX NUMBER:  107.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR) and the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is entitled to these awards based on his military service in Vietnam.  He was TDY to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos during his tour of duty in Thailand.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 14 July 1972 to 24 May 1980.  He was honorably discharged with a total of 7 years, 10 months, and 11 days of active military service.   His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) indicates he served 8 months, and 28 days of Foreign Service, and that he was awarded the Air Force (AF) Good Conduct Medal, with one Oak Leaf Cluster, AF Longevity Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, and AF Outstanding Unit Award.

The Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 4 Oct 73 to 9 Jul 74, reflects he was assigned to Ubon Airfield, Thailand; however, there is no mention of any TDY’s to Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the applicant’s record does reflect he served in Thailand from 4 Oct 73 to 9 Jul 74, but it is outside the inclusive period of 4 Jul 65 and 28 Mar 73 for entitlement of the VSM.

On 1 Jun 04, AFPC/DPAPP1 advised the applicant his records did not indicate he served in Vietnam, and he would have to provide documentation, i.e., a copy of a TDY order or a Travel Voucher, to show he served in Vietnam.  In his 16 Jun 04 response, applicant contended he spent considerable time in Vietnam. His unit was also in Cambodia and Laos.  During his debriefing he was told that many of his activities were to remain secret.  Since that time he has been reminded of these activities through many sources such as television, radio, magazines and newspapers.  He has not, nor will not, ever speak of these things as he promised at his debriefing.

There was no official record or documentation on file showing he had qualified as an expert with the M-16 or a handgun on an Air Force firing range.  He did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claim.  Therefore, they are unable to verify his entitlement to the SAEMR.

The applicant’s unit of assignment was awarded the PUC for the periods of 18 Feb 66 to 30 Jun 67 and 11 Jul 68 to 31 Aug 69, but the applicant was assigned for the period of 4 Jul 77 – 3 Jul 79.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant contends that he is entitled to the PUC.  Between 1974 and 1980 he was assigned to intelligence units at Langley AFB that were awarded the PUC (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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 BC‑2004-01599 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 04.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 27 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.