RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-01184 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Airman Performance Report (APR), rendered for the period 18 September 1968 through 17 March 1969, be corrected to reflect that he was stationed in Guam (3rd Munitions Maintenance Squadron) (3 MSMS) rather than San Francisco, California (4133 Bomb Wing) (4133 BW). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was stationed in Guam but his records reflect he was stationed in California. He believes this error has denied him eligibility for certain decorations. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of two of his APRs, a performance certificate, and excerpts of Air Force Pamphlet 900-2, Unit Decorations, Awards and Campaign Participation Credits. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force effective 13 April 1966. He was progressively promoted to the grade of sergeant (E-4) with a date of rank of 1 February 1969. He was honorably released from active duty effective 12 February 1970. He served three years and ten months on active duty with eleven months and three days foreign service. The applicant appealed to the Board in 2009 (Docket Number BCMR- 2009-00668) to correct his records to reflect entitlement to the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA), Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM), Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR), Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVGC w/P), and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVCM). The Chief, Career Development Branch, Air Force Personnel Center, was able to verify the applicant’s entitlement for the AFOUA with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the AFGCM, and the RVGC w/P. However, they were unable to verify his entitlement to the SAEMR and the RVCM. On 21 July 2009, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for the SAEMR and the RVCM. On 5 November 2009, the Board denied the applicant reconsideration of his request as the applicant did not provide any new relevant evidence. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant is not eligible to file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board. After reviewing the applicant’s records, they cannot confirm whether or not he or his evaluator was actually assigned to the 3 MMS or the 4133 BW. It appears the 4133 BW was a unit under the 3 MMS, stationed at Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam; however, it is quite possible for the applicant to have worked directly with his evaluator and be assigned to the 4133 BW while his evaluator was assigned to the 3 MMS. Nevertheless, while the applicant believes his APR reflects he was stationed in San Francisco, California, it does not. “APO San Francisco 96334” is the Army Post Office (APO) designation for Andersen AFB, Guam; therefore, it is accurately reflected on the contested APR. DPSIDEP notes the applicant’s APR closing 24 March 1968 reflects his assignment as Andersen AFB, Guam, rather than APO San Francisco 96334; however, either designation is acceptable. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He does not agree with the Air Force advisory opinion. All the awards his unit received are on the copies of the AFP 200-2 excerpts he has provided. He has been wearing these awards since he received them and will continue to wear them until he dies. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ 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. We note the applicant is requesting a change to the contested EPR in an effort to qualify for certain awards. However, after reviewing the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; 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-2010-01184 in Executive Session on 19 January 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-01184 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 3 Jun 10. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Dec 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Dec 10. Panel Chair