ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01298 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be entitled to the VSM for flying out of Thailand in 1975. In support of his requests, the applicant provides a two-page typed statement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, on 6 Apr 73, he entered the Regular Air Force. On 5 Apr 77, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserves and was credited with four years of total active service. In a letter dated 4 Jan 80, the applicant was notified that he did not serve in Vietnam during the inclusive period (1 Mar 61 to 28 Mar 73) to receive the Vietnam era awards. On 20 Mar 92, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for award of the DFC. On 20 Feb 13, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request for award of the DFC. On 17 Jun 13, the applicant’s request was denied by the Board because it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Additionally, the Board notified the applicant that his request for award of the VSM was a new request and required a new DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records. On 16 Sep 13, the applicant submitted another request for reconsideration for award of the DFC and the VSM. On 9 Dec 14, the Board denied the applicant’s request for the DFC because it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration. The Board again notified the applicant that his request for award of the VSM was a new issue not previously considered by the Board and required a new DD Form 149. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the DFC indicating the applicant has not provided any new relevant documentation as previously requested. There is no official documentation in the applicant's record verifying he was recommended for or awarded the DFC. The applicant's current request for reconsideration for award of the DFC does not contain new relevant evidence. Previous guidance has been given to the applicant as to the processes and documentation needed to reasonably consider his request. To date, the applicant has not provided the documentation to support the award or justify an error or injustice exists. The DFC may be awarded to any persons who, after 6 Apr 17, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty. The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances. Awards will be made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained operational activities against an armed enemy. After a thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel record, DPSID was able to verify award of the VSM with one Bronze Service Star (VSM w/1BSS). According to official documentation, the applicant directly supported Vietnam, Operation FREQUENT WIND, from 4 Apr 75 to 15 May 75 for which he is eligible for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM). In accordance with Public Law (PL) 1007-314, dated 2 Dec 02, service members who are awarded the AFEM for direct support of Operation FREQUENT WIND can, upon request, exchange the AFEM for award of the VSM. DPSID will automatically award the VSM w/1BSS in lieu of the AFEM so that the applicant does not have to submit a separate request for the exchange. The applicant's previous requests for the VSM were denied as the authorization to exchange the AFEM for Operation FREQUENT WIND for the VSM was not in place until 2002. The AFEM as currently annotated on the applicant's Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 215) will remain as the applicant is eligible for the AFEM for his service in direct support of the Mayaguez Operation. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFHRA/RS recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the DFC indicating the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation. The complete AFHRA evaluation is at Exhibit D. SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the DFC indicating they concur with the recommendations of DPSID and AFHRA that the applicant has not submitted any new relevant documentation as previously requested, such as a reconstructed recommendation, eyewitness statements or verification that an award for the DFC was placed in official channels, or any evidence that an error or injustice exists. The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 an error or injustice to warrant correcting the applicant’s records to show entitlement to the DFC. We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it was discoverable at the time of any previous application. However, since no new and relevant evidence has been provided, we find the request does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. As the applicant has been previously advised, reconsideration is provided only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the application was submitted. Further, the reiteration of facts we have previously addressed, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for reopening a case. Therefore, aside from the administrative corrections noted above, we find no basis to recommend granting the additional relief sought in this application. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the additional evidence presented did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board; 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01298 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Jun 14, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 8 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 21 May 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 15.