RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00026 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect the following: 1. Entitlement to the Vietnam Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars (VSM w/2BSS). 2. Foreign Service in Vietnam. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was sent on temporary duty (TDY) on two occasions to Vietnam from Sep 67 to Mar 68 and Sep 68 to Mar 69. He flew over 40 combat missions and received combat pay during both deployments. He should be credited with over 12 months of Foreign Service. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Honorable Discharge Certificate, DD Form 214, an Airman Performance Report (APR) and medal criterion from the internet. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served on active duty in the Air Force from 4 Apr 66 to 3 Feb 70. During this period the applicant served in Japan from 20 Sep 67 to 22 Mar 68. His DD Form 214 covering this period reflects six months and four days of Foreign Service. AFPC/DPAPP verified the applicant served at Kadena Air Base (AB), Japan, from 20 Sep 67 to 22 Mar 68, for a total of six months and four days. DPAPP was unable to verify any additional Foreign Service other than what is already reflected on his DD Form 214. The applicant was asked to provide source documents with his name on them to support his claim, i.e., travel vouchers, evaluation reports, letters of evaluation, decorations, or some other official military document that reflects this information. On 2 Mar 11, the applicant responded to DPAPP’s letter, and provided a copy of his APR for the period 4 Apr 67 to 3 Apr 68, which indicates he completed 19 combat missions during his 67-68 deployment, and a Letter of Appreciation, which indicates he completed 73 missions during his 68-69 deployment. The VSM is awarded to all service members of the Armed Forces who, between 4 Jul 65 and 28 Mar 73, served in the following areas of Southeast Asia: in Vietnam and the contiguous waters and airspace; in Thailand, Laos or Cambodia or the airspace thereof and in the direct support of military operations in Vietnam. A service member must have served on TDY for 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days to be eligible for award of the VSM. These time limitations may be waived for personnel participating in actual combat operations. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial. DPAPP states a review of the applicant’s master personnel records (MPR) and documentation submitted failed to provide any documents that would substantiate Foreign Service in Vietnam. DPAPP further states the documentation provided by the applicant in response to their 22 Feb 11; does not substantiate service in the Republic of Vietnam. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR states based on the assessment of DPAPP and the criteria for award of the VSM; they found no evidence to support award of the VSM w/2BSS. The applicant’s performance reports covering the period 10 Jun 68 and 2 Apr 69, both mention the applicant’s direct support of operations in Southeast Asia; however, the exact location is not identified. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The documentation provided to date clearly shows flight time during both TDYs, in 67-68 and 68-69. The missions were Operation Young Tigers and Operation Arc Light. During his TDYs, he spent a considerable amount of time flying out of Kadena AB, Japan; Clark AB, Philippines; Andersen AFB, Guam; U-Tapao AB, Thailand; and Ching Chuan King AB, Taiwan. In addition, during all these periods he received flight pay and hazardous duty pay. He was with the 99th Bomb Wing, 99 OMS, and was a KC-135 crew chief. Someone must know KC-135 crew chiefs flew with their aircraft on most missions at that time. He has photos of his airplane aerial refueling fully loaded B-52’s, but of course that would not show what part of the globe they were flying over, despite all the ordinance hanging under the wings of those aircraft being refueled. The Air Force should know that KC-135s flying out of those bases were refueling aircraft in support our mission in South East Asia in air space defined in the VSM Executive Order 11212, 8 Jul 65. The applicant’s complete response is at 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his records should be corrected to reflect award of the VSM w/2 BSS. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find his assertions and the documentation provided in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR). Without official documentation showing specific times and locations of duty in Vietnam, we are unable to verify that he served in Vietnam. We note the applicant’s performance reports indicate he supported operations in Southeast Asia; however, this does not confirm service was, in fact, performed in Vietnam. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs, and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim or an error or injustice. Accordingly, 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 BC-2011-00026 in Executive Session on 29 Jun 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 7 Mar 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 26 Apr 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 May 11. Panel Chair