RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02901 COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect the following changes:

1)	Temporary Duty (TDY) in Thailand from October 1965 to February 1967 (approximately 18 months) be documented

2)	Foreign Service time (item C) should reflect time served in Okinawa and Thailand.

Additionally, he requests an explanation why the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) is listed on his DD Form 214.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was exposed to Agent Orange while serving in the Air Force in Thailand but the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) is telling him he is considered a “Vietnam Era Veteran” (rather than a veteran of the Vietnam War) because he does not have sufficient proof he served in Thailand. He indicates his medical and pay records prove he served in Thailand. Further, there appear to be inconsistencies in his records regarding his service; specifically, he has been awarded the VSM in support of the Vietnam Defense Campaign but there is no supporting documentation to identify the location in which he served to earn the VSM. He is now seeking medical treatment from the DVA but the inconsistencies in his record are prohibiting him from receiving the care he needs.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 14 May 63, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.
According to the applicant’s AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, he served in Okinawa from 4 Sep 65 to 6 Jan 67 (17 Months).

According to the applicant’s AF Form 7, his TDY to South East Asia (SEA), from 23 Oct 65 to 5 Feb 66, is calculated as 105 days.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 7, he was awarded the VSM for in support of the Vietnam Defense Campaign, from 23 Oct 65 to 5 Feb 66.

The VSM is awarded to all members of the United States Armed Forces who served in Vietnam or contiguous waters or airspace after 3 Jul 65, and before 28 Mar 73. Additionally, personnel serving in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia in direct support of operations in Vietnam during the same time period also were eligible for the VSM. To be eligible, a service member must be permanently assigned, attached, or detailed for one or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting ground (military) operations; permanently assigned, attached, or detailed for one or more days aboard a naval vessel directly supporting military operations; have actually participated as a crewmember in one or more aerial flights into airspace above Vietnam and contiguous waters directly supporting military operations; have served on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 non-consecutive days [in Vietnam or contiguous areas]. Those time limitations may be waived for personnel participating in actual combat operations.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, Performance Report, he deployed to SEA during the rating period of 14 May 65 through
13 May 66.
On 12 May 67, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 11 months, and 29 days of active service, which includes 1 year, 7 months, and 18 days of foreign service.

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:
AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant has requested his record be corrected to reflect his service in Vietnam, Thailand,  and Okinawa; however, only evidence of service in Okinawa was found. As the applicant’s personnel record only documents service in Okinawa, it is not recommended to correct his record to reflect service in Vietnam or Thailand.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSID provides no recommendation but has identified the applicant was awarded the VSM, as annotated on his DD Form 214 and AF Form 7; however, official documentation was not available to determine why the VSM was awarded. Further, the applicant’s official military record documents service in SEA for 105 days, but there is no evidence specifically stating he served in the VSM area of eligibility.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant expresses frustration regarding the OPRs position that evidence does not exist in his record, yet his military records clearly state he was deployed to South East Asia for 105 days, as stated on his AF Form 7. Further, the AF Form 7 states he was awarded the VSM. Since the VSM is only awarded to those who have “…contributed direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces.” He wonders why the Air Force cannot support the position of the very record it produces. He feels left with little option as his claims (to the DVA) are dismissed without merit and the Air Force is not helping his case.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.
3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the comments of offices of primary responsibility indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant’s records contain no documentation substantiating the applicant’s contention that he served in Thailand, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates
1.	

that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, we note his AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, documenting temporary duty (TDY) to Southeast Asia for 105 days, and his previous eligibility to qualify for the award of the Vietnam Service Medal supports the applicant’s contentions. These documents lead the panel to conclude it is more likely than not the applicant served in Thailand, but his personnel records are incomplete. While the Board does not recommend correcting the applicant’s DD Form 214, the Board recommends issuing the applicant a Boots-On-Ground letter for service in Thailand in 1966. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that he had boots- on-the-ground in the Republic of Thailand from 23 Oct 65 to 5 Feb 66.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02901 in Executive Session on 21 May 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 20 Nov 14. Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 16 Mar 15. Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 15.