RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03194

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected as follows:

1) DD Form 214, dated 1 Jun 78, item 19 to reflect his Vietnam service; and, 

2) DD Form 214, dated 28 Aug 74, to reflect 365 day credit for service in Vietnam instead of only the 65 day credit for service in Thailand.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was assigned to Bien Hoa AB, Vietnam, from 3 Mar to 6 Dec 69.  An administrative error resulted in his last DD Form 214, dated 1 Jun 78, being incorrect.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 12 Jul 67.

On 26 Oct 70, the applicant was issued his first DD Form 214 reflecting 1 year, 9 months and 28 days foreign service.  

On 28 Aug 74, the applicant was issued his second DD Form 214 reflecting five months foreign service and block 19 (Indochina or Korea Service Since August 5, 1964) indicating “YES - Thailand: 65 days.”

On 23 Aug 76, the applicant was issued his third DD Form 214 reflecting 6 months foreign service and block 19 indicating “YES - 365 days.”  

On 1 Jun 78, the applicant was issued his fourth DD Form 214 with no foreign service and block 19 indicating “NO.”

On 4 Feb 16, AFPC/DPAPP provided the applicant a “boots on ground” letter as proof of service in the Republic of Vietnam.  

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/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice as the applicant’s service time is appropriately reflected in the respective DD Form 214 for the respective periods of service.  It is a common misperception that all prior DD Form 214 information is carried forward from one document to another; yet, each document carries its own weight as a record for a specific period of active duty and one does not replace another.  In the applicant’s case, his DD Forms 214 are each valid certificates of service and appropriately record foreign service (to include Thailand and Vietnam as the inquiry applies to the applicant) during the respective DD Forms 214 effective period. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 Mar 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03194 in Executive Session on 8 Dec 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03194 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 Feb 16.
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Mar 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.