RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01395
		INDEX CODE:  107.00
		
		COUNSEL:  YES
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 NOVEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect credit for a TDY to Vietnam in 1966.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was TDY from Thailand to Bien Hoa, South Vietnam from 4 Aug 66 to 30 Nov 66.  His service with the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing is not reflected in his service record and this has been a hindrance as to his status with the Veterans Administration.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 6 Aug 63 – 30 Jul 67.

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, reflects he served 3 years, 11 months, and 25 days of active service of which one year was Foreign Service.

The Foreign Service on AF Form 7 (Airman’s Military Record) reflects he was assigned in Thailand from 30 Jul 66 – 29 Jul 67.

On 30 Jul 67, he was honorably released from active duty in the grade of E-4, and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial and states there is no evidence of any TDY into Vietnam.  There are no documents in his records that support his claim that he was TDY to Vietnam.  Additionally, the applicant was asked to check his personal files to see if he might find any source documents to support his claim.  He did not respond to their request. 

The DPAPP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he was stationed in-transit at Bien Hoa during 1966 (Aug – Nov) on a TDY to the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing.  His assignment orders were to be with the 6234th TFW in Korat, Thailand.  While at McConnell AFB for training on F-105 aircraft he was offered a temporary duty servicing F-100Fs used in “Misty” and “Skyspot” operations supporting Korat F-105s.  XXXXXXX had both F-105 and F-100 aircraft within its air squadrons including the “Wild Weasel” configurations at that time, and he was trained in both plane’s avionics systems.  He believes the record keeping problems happened because his Vietnam TDY occurred while a crossover was going on and his old unit, the 343rd CASq did not know of the change and did not follow through with new orders.

In applicant’s rebuttal he provides his personal statement, copies of his Permanent Change of Station Order and transit Special Order, various pictures of Bien Hoa’s flight line, and Wing and Squadron “monthly reports.”

Applicant’s complete submission, 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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded his record should be changed to reflect service in Vietnam.  Applicant’s rebuttal submission was noted, but these documents do not confirm service was, in fact, performed in Vietnam.  The applicant’s records, including his performance reports, do not reflect TDY or service in that country.  The applicant has not produced a travel voucher, TDY order or other documents that verify service in Vietnam.  We therefore agree with the Air Force’s recommendation and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2007-01395 in Executive Session on 13 September 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-01395 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 13 Jul07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jul 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 07, w/atchs.