RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04995
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NOT NDICATED


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be amended to reflect his temporary duty (TDY) assignments to 
Thailand, Guam, (Hawaii, Philippines) - Administratively Corrected, and Okinawa.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes his TDY assignments to Thailand, Guam, Hawaii, Okinawa and Philippines are not reflected in his records due to 
him having a top secret clearance.  He desires his records changed to qualify for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he submits a personal statement, documents extracted from his military personnel 
records and a letter from the National Personnel Records Center.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 June 1970.

On 1 March 1974, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve in the 
grade of sergeant.  He served 3 years, 8 months and 29 days on active duty and credited with 1 year and 3 months of foreign and/or sea service.

On 13 February 2015, AFPC/DPAPP advised the applicant that they were able to verify and confirm boots on ground foreign service 
time at Clark Air Base, Republic of the Philippines, from 
23 April 1972 to 22 July 1973.  While assigned to Clark Air 
Base, he was deployed to Hawaii.  Since specific locations are 
not annotated on a member’s DD Form 214, he was further advised 
to use this letter as proof of “boots on ground” for the 
Republic of the Philippines and Hawaii.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial.  DPAPP states they were able to 
verify and confirm foreign service boots-on-the-ground at Clark 
Air Base, Republic of the Philippines, from 23 April 1972 to 
22 July 1973.  Also, they were able to verify that the applicant 
deployed to Hawaii while assigned to Clark Air Base.  A review 
of his records and documentation submitted failed to provide any 
documents that substantiate foreign service time in Thailand, 
Guam or Okinawa.

The DPAPP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he has provided documentation proving he 
was TDY at several Thailand bases.  He further states that since 
a top secret clearance was required for his area of expertise 
there was limited staff that could be considered qualified to 
accomplish the mission.  As a result, in critical situations he 
was sent TDY to top secret locations.

The applicant’s complete response, 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.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing 
the evidence of record, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate 
foreign service time in Thailand, Guam and Okinawa.  We note that the applicant’s foreign service to Hawaii and the 
Philippines was corrected administratively; therefore, action by the Board is not required.   In the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-04995 in Executive Session on 14 August 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 October 2013, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 14 January 2014.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 June 2014.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 June 2013, w/atchs.
1 2