RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03099 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His military service record be corrected to reflect service in Vietnam. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While serving in Taiwan, he volunteered and was sent to Vietnam for temporary duty (TDY). The TDY required special clearance and permission to enter the combat zone. For some reason his record is not complete. He has since found out that those who served in Vietnam are entitled to disability compensation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 17 Nov 64. On 16 Oct 68, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 3 years and 11 months of active 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. A review of the applicant’s record confirmed foreign service in Taiwan from 4 Apr 66 to 3 Dec 67; however, his records did not contain any evidence of any foreign service in Vietnam. Although one of the applicant’s performance reports indicates a TDY assignment to Southeast Asia, the location of this duty could not be verified. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that it shouldn’t be his responsibility to prove that he served in Vietnam as it should be a matter of record. He further contends that his pay records should reflect that he received additional pay during the period of his TDY. It is wrong that he is being denied his rightful benefits because of the possibility that someone did not do their job, or that records were not properly maintained. In a second letter from the applicant, he reiterates that the evidence leans more towards his claim, considering there were only two countries in Southeast Asia, Vietnam and Thailand, where the U.S. had stations doing the same kind of work that he was doing (Exhibits E and F). 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, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the comments of AFPC/DPAPP indicating that relief should be denied because the applicant’s records contain no documentation substantiating his foreign service time in Vietnam, we believe a preponderance of the evidence substantiates that corrective action is warranted. In this respect, we note the applicant’s enlisted performance report (EPR), rendered for the period 6 Jul 66 through 13 Feb 67, reflect he was handpicked as a select member of a five-man team for a special temporary duty assignment in Southeast Asia. Additionally, we note the applicant’s performance reports convey his duty assignment of dissemination of data as of a highly critical nature, which confirms his contention that his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and work were classified as top secret and used in only two locations during the period in question. Therefore, we believe it appropriate to recommend the applicant’s records be corrected to the extent 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 Vietnam, from 6 July 1966 through 13 February 1967. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03099 in Executive Session on 21 May 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 24 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Mar 15. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Mar 15.