RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05816 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His official personnel records [referred to as “St Louis Records” by the applicant] and DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be corrected to address the following errors: 1. Credit for foreign Service time in Vietnam should be two (2) months and three (3) days. 2. Change Box 19 (Indochina or Korea service since 5 Aug 64), from “no,” to “yes.” 3. Change completion date of course 3ABR27630 to 21 Feb 75 (Administratively Resolved). Additionally, he requests removal of his nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 he received in October 1978. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He completed basic training on 15 Jan 75, and then completed technical training for radar/special operations on 21 Feb 75. He then served in Vietnam from 25 Feb 75 to 1 May 75. While attached to a South Vietnamese radar site as an advisor/special weapons controller, he was qualified as an expert marksman with both a handgun and rifle. He was wounded on/about 15 Apr 75 and was operated on by South Vietnamese surgeons to remove the bullet. He contends they [South Vietnamese] awarded him the PH Medal and SS for helping keep their radar station functional while under attack. He later received medical treatment at Madigan Army Medical Center on 17 Apr 75. He was then transferred aboard the USS Enterprise to provide radar coverage for the 7th fleet. He now has extensive medical issues as a result of his shoulder injury from the bullet wound he received in Vietnam. He requests removal of his NJP received for stealing a battery for a government vehicle because he had previously received permission to borrow the battery; therefore it was never stolen. He never participated in a hearing, nor was he able to make statements on his own behalf. He contends information on his DD Form 214 has been changed without his consent. He states he was offered a reenlistment bonus of $15,000 but it was increased to $20,000, as documented on his DD Form 214. He served in the military during the worst time in history. Most of his duties in Vietnam were too highly classified to discuss. As a veteran, he wants the record set straight and to have all these errors corrected. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 Dec 74, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, Airman Performance Report (APR), his location of assignment at the end of the reporting period of 5 Dec 74 to 5 Dec 75 was McChord AFB, WA. According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, his location of assignment at the end of the reporting period of 6 Dec 75 to 1 Sep 76 was McChord AFB, WA. According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, his location of assignment at the end of the reporting period of 2 Sep 76 to 7 Jul 77 was Cliff, NM. According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, his location of assignment at the end of the reporting period of 8 Jul 77 to 7 Jul 78, was Silver City, NM. On 10 Oct 78, the applicant received NJP under Article 15 for wrongfully appropriating government property. The applicant accepted the NJP, desired to make an oral presentation but did not desire to make a written presentation. On 11 Oct 78, the applicant’s commander directed a suspended reduction in grade and the forfeiture of pay for two months. On 23 Oct 78, the applicant acknowledged the NJP without appeal. On 4 Dec 78, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with four years of active service, which includes no foreign service time. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with regards to the applicant’s request to remove his Article 15 from his record. On or about 23 Sep 78, the applicant allegedly wrongfully appropriated an automotive battery, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ. For the alleged wrongdoing, his commander offered him NJP on 10 Oct 78. The AF Form 3070A, Notification of Intent to Impose Nonjudicial Punishment, indicated the applicant consulted a lawyer and accepted NJP proceedings. He indicated he wanted to make an oral presentation and did not desire to make a written presentation. On 11 Oct 78, the applicant's commander found that he committed the offense and punished him by reducing him to the grade of airman first class (suspended until 1 Apr 79) and ordered him to forfeit $50.00 per month for two months. The applicant did not appeal. The applicant now claims that he used the automotive battery with the permission of the base commander. He also claims that he was not granted the opportunity to make an oral presentation before the commander as he had requested. The arguments the applicant advances could have been made near the time of the action; at this point, we cannot check with the appropriate personnel to determine why the applicant may not have been granted a personal appearance or if the base commander gave the applicant permission to use the battery. Moreover, the applicant has the burden of proof in this case and in our opinion, he has not supported his claims with sufficient evidence. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIT has identified an error with regards to the applicant’s completion date of the Aerospace Control and Warning Systems Operator Course, and will correct his record administratively. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with regards to the applicant’s foreign service time. A review of his Master Personnel Records, and documentation submitted, failed to provide any documents that substantiate foreign service time in Vietnam. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Based on the applicant’s contentions, it was interpreted he was requesting award of the Silver Star (SS), Purple Heart (PH) Medal, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon with Bronze Star (SAEMR w/BS), and awards for Vietnam service, as they are not documented in his record and could have been awarded by the Board. With regards to the SS, there was no documentation in the applicant's record, such as the Special Order or recommendation for award of the SS, nor was any provided with this request to verify the applicant was recommended for or awarded the SS. There is no evidence in the applicant's record, nor was any provided, to support award or justify an error or injustice exists. In order to reasonably consider the applicant's request, he will need to submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement preferably from someone within his chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, and eyewitness statements. With regards to the PH Medal, we were unable to locate a signed certificate, Special Order or any other official documentation, nor were any provided with this request, verifying the applicant was recommended for or awarded the PH Medal. In addition, there is no medical documentation reflecting the applicant had an enemy related injury that required medical attention. Although the applicant provided medical documentation, the medical evidence accounts the events as relayed by the applicant only, there are no eyewitness statement to corroborate the applicant's version of events. Further, the applicant's request was not submitted to the Purple Heart Review Board as it lacks the medical documentation indicating that the applicant was injured due to enemy action, and eyewitness statements. With regards to the SAEMR w/BS, no documentation verifying the applicant qualified as "expert" with both the M-16 rifle and standard issue handgun was located in the applicant’s Master Personnel Records, rendering him ineligible for award of the AFSMER w/BS. With regards to the VSM, there was no official documentation in the applicant's record, nor was any provided, to verify he was attached or assigned to a unit for one or more days or served on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 non-consecutive days in the area of eligibility, nor was he permanently assigned, attached, or detailed for one or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting ground operations; or actually participated as a crew member in one or more aerial flights directly supporting military operations; rendering him ineligible for award of the VSM. With regards to the VCM, there was no official documentation in the applicant's record, nor was any provided with his request, to verify the applicant served for an aggregate of six months in the area of responsibility. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit F. ? AFHRA/RS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice with regards to the implied request for the SS or PH Medal. Specifically, the applicant sites actions on/around 15 Apr 75, at a South Vietnamese radar site, render him eligible for the SS and PH Medal. A review of the documents supplied by the applicant, as well as the official personnel and medical file supplied by the National Personnel Records Center uncovered numerous inconsistencies with the his contentions. First, there is no documentation the applicant ever served in Vietnam. It is highly unlikely a 3-skill level airman would be sent directly to South Vietnam, within days of graduating technical training, in an advisory capacity. His performance reports encompassing April 1975 do not note any deployment or service in Vietnam - only that he was progressing satisfactorily towards his 5-skill level. Second, there is no indication he was ever shot in the right shoulder, as indicated by in a Department of the Army Form 3349, dated 10 Jun 75, provided by the veteran. All of the applicant’s medical records omit this incident, but instead, refer to right shoulder injuries attributed to motorcycle accident in June 1976. Third, there is no evidence the applicant was ever assigned to, or received medical treatment aboard, the USS Enterprise. However, the applicant did receive twelve stitches to his nose and five stiches to his eye in August 1975, by a Doctor D. Peterson at Madigan Army Medical Center, although the cause for the injury is not noted (but after the time period claimed). The same doctor sees him again in August and September 1976; however, his signature goes from a juvenile scrawl depicted on the 10 Jun 75 form to a flowing adult signature in the 1976 forms that he signs. Since this 10 Jun 75 form is not found in the veteran's medical records, its veracity is suspect. With the multiple conflicts between the official records and the veteran's claim, combined with the lack of verifiable medical documentation, it is not recommended the applicant be awarded the SS or PH Medal. A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation is at Exhibit G. SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. After a review of the applicant’s official military records, and complete submission, there is no evidence to support the applicant served in Vietnam, or that he was wounded by the enemy. Further, there is no evidence he was nominated for the SS, PH Medal, SAEMR w/BS, or any medals for Vietnam service. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant clarifies his request to 1) Remove the Article 15 regarding the car battery incident and 2) his DD Form 214 to reflect service in Vietnam. He did not request the award of any medals. Additionally, due to his declining medical condition, he believes he should have been medically discharged. He requests the Board advise him of the procedures. Further, he takes exception to the way the advisory opinions portray his character and now volunteers to testify in front of the Board to provide a verbal account of his contentions and to answer any question in support of his claims. He inquires why multiple pieces of his military record he contends are missing, such as travel orders, medical records, and training records. With much of his official record missing or incomplete, he is left with only his sworn testimony regarding the validity of his contentions. As many of his operations in Vietnam are classified, he cannot go into much detail on many accounts. He submits another account of the day he was wounded in action and states VA, Air Force, and Army medical records provide evidence of his injuries. Specifically, he notes the 10 Jun 75 medical report is not the applicant’s account to the doctor, rather the doctor’s verification of previous medical treatment. He provides many similar documents as seen in his original application. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. Applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner. 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 application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. With the exception of the administrative corrections identified, it is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. Further, corrections to items within the applicant’s record, as indicated in the applicant’s rebuttal, should be submitted with a new DD 149, Application for Correction of Military Record. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05816 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 15 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 16 Apr 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 12 May 14. Exhibit F. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Jul 14. Exhibit G. Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 20 Apr 15. Exhibit H. Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, undated. Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 15. Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 May 15.