RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02572 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the following awards, decorations and badges: a. The Air Force Distinguished Service Medal. b. The Presidential Unit Citation (United States). c. The Presidential Unit Citation (Republic of Korea). d. The Legion of Merit. e. The Air Force Reserve Meritorious Service Medal. f. The Meritorious Service Medal. g. The Air Medal. h. The Combat Readiness Medal. i. The Air Force Organizational Excellence Award. j. The Air Force Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon k. The Joint Service Commendation Medal. l. The Air Force Recruiter Ribbon. m. The United Nations Medal. n. The NATO Medal. o. The Navy Unit Commendation. p. The Valorous Unit Award. q. The Finance and Acquisition Badge. r. The Observer Badge. s. The Command and Control Badge. 2. He be promoted to the rank of chief master sergeant (E-9) or in the alternative to the rank of chief warrant officer (W-4). 3. His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect all declassified Foreign and Domestic individual combat awards and combat unit awards to which he may be entitled. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He may be entitled to decorations that are not reflected in his military personnel records due to the classified nature of the missions he performed. He was “sheep dipped” (involved in covert operations associated with intelligence agencies) and many of the missions in which he participated were classified. Therefore, decorations were not submitted and individuals were not recognized for their efforts in support of these classified missions. 2. He supported special operations and intelligence missions and held positions that were not commensurate with his rank and pay grade. His enlisted performance reports (EPRs) reflect laudatory comments by his superiors and he was recommended for promotion by his supervisors on numerous occasions. He may have been denied promotion because he was not assigned to an Air Force billet during the time he was “sheep dipped” and his records were maintained by intelligence agencies outside of the Air Force. Given the period of history that he served, it is possible that he was discriminated against based on his race which may have been a factor in him not being promoted to a higher rank. The Special Experience Identifier (SEI) 998 (Chief Enlisted Manager (CEM)/Superintendent Level) proves that he was involved in operations performed by higher ranking individuals. Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) records and pay vouchers indicate that he performed duties of a clandestine nature outside of the Regular Air Force for Headquarters Air Force, the Department of the Army, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Air Force Form 7, Airman Military Record, DD Form 214, AF Form 1267, Record of Travel Payments, DD Form 1588, Record of Travel Payments, and five supporting statements. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 May 1956 and was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). He retired in that grade on 1 Jun 76 and served a total of 20 years and 7 days of active duty service. On 26 Oct 10, AFPC/DPSIDR notified the applicant of his entitlement to the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters (AFOUA w/3BOLC), the Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM), and the Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Education Graduate Ribbon (NCOPMEGR) The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are described in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HAF/IM/AFDO indicates they have no position concerning the applicant’s request for promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-(9). Their office was contacted by the applicant’s son seeking information about a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that he submitted to various Air Force offices requesting documents pertaining to his father’s service in Vietnam. AFDO reviewers spent hundreds of man-hours seeking evidence of his father’s military service. Documents such as temporary duty travel statements and extracts from the applicant’s records failed to help locate documentation connecting him with service in Vietnam. The complete AFDO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial regarding the applicant’s request for promotion. The applicant had ample time to inquire about his promotion considerations prior to his retirement in 1976. He provides no supporting evidence of an error or injustice regarding his considerations for promotion. He asserts only possibilities as to why he was not promoted when he felt he should have been throughout his career. Prior to the inception of the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) in 1970, promotions were made at the Major Command, unless authority was delegated by the Major Command to the Wing, Group, or Squadron levels. HQ USAF distributed promotion quotas to the Major Commands based on projected vacancies within each career field subdivision. Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number of personnel that could be promoted. Some career fields received more promotions than others based on vacancies and the needs of the Air Force. Basic eligibility requirements such as time in grade, skill level, and recommendation by the commander were necessary for consideration, but in no way guaranteed promotion. Supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in a better position to evaluate the applicant’s potential and eligibility for promotion. There are no official documents or promotion orders in the applicant’s military personnel records to indicate he was selected or promoted beyond the rank of technical sergeant. Based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to technical sergeant he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to master sergeant under WAPS beginning with cycle 71A7. They are unable to verify his promotion scores for any cycle for which he was considered as promotion histories are only maintained for a period of ten years. Ten years is generally considered an adequate period to resolve any promotion inquires or concerns. Additionally, the application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 3.5.1, dated 1 Mar 96. Therefore, the application may also be dismissed under the equitable doctrine of laches which denies relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed asserting a claim. Laches consist of two elements; inexcusable delay and prejudice to the Air Force resulting there from. In this case, the applicant waited more than 34 years after retirement before he petitioned the AFBCMR. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIM recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request for all of the requested occupational badges and the aeronautical badge. The applicant did not provide proof that he completed the proper pre-requisites for wear of the occupational badge nor did he provide sufficient evidence to substantiate he was awarded the aeronautical badge. The applicant held AFSC 6450 Inventory Management for his entire career, but states he did not perform missions or duties consistent with his primary AFSC. He indicates his duties were of a classified nature and were not entered into his military personnel records because of security reasons. Although that may be the case, in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2903, Dress and Personnel Appearance of Air Force Personnel, the basic USAF occupational badges can be worn after completing technical school, the senior badge after award of the 7-skill level and the master badge as a master sergeant or above with five years in the AFSC subsequent to award of the 7-skill level. The applicant did not officially hold the Finance and Acquisition AFSC or the Command and Control AFSC. He also did not supply sufficient documentation needed to show he met the criteria authorizing him the badges. Regarding the applicant’s request for the USAF observer badge, it is now known as the aircrew badge. IAW AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Badges, the Air Force authorizes the award and wear of the basic aviation badge to members who complete applicable USAF flying training requirements. The applicant did not provide any aeronautical orders or sufficient evidence to authorize him wear of the badge. The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFPC/DPSOE advisory opinion indicates that he did not file for correction of his records in a timely manner. However, he did not discover the errors until after he was denied service- connected benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). With respect to the time delay in requesting that he be promoted, members of the Armed Forces do not approach their superiors to inquire about or discuss their promotion prospects. Most service members focus on performing their duties and leave evaluation of their performance to their superiors and let the official system that decides promotion work. The nature of his duties was such that he was concerned with performing the mission which was an oversight and that negatively affected his promotion opportunities. His military personnel record is absent of evidence of his service in Vietnam because he was assigned to Government agencies outside of the Air Force and the documents are classified. Research conducted by numerous agencies failed to show any evidence of his service in Vietnam. His DD Form 214 and Form 7 contain several pieces of information that most people overlook. Item 25 of his DD Form 214 reflects that he has a Defense Attaché Systems Personnel Number D45-2963, APO San Francisco, California. Additionally, there is mention of him working with an Army Aviation Company when he was assigned to Osan Air Base. There is also mention that he was involved in interservice coordination and interagency agreements. These two terms mean that any information on his activities in Korea, including his Foreign assignments, could be exempt from the FOIA/PA release list. These two documents contain more evidence of his involvement with classified missions. He understands the AFBCMR requires tangible evidence in the form of documentation. Apparently, this documentation is only considered to be relevant on the condition that it was generated and controlled by the Air Force. Documentation from other agencies was submitted to the Board for consideration. The opinions rendered by the examiners were based on limited information. The sensitive information that could have benefited his request could not be accessed by examiners due to them not having a sufficiently high security clearance. His case raises issues as to whether the AFBCMR can properly consider requests similar to his where Air Force personnel perform special assignment and their records and activities are maintained by Government agencies separate from the Air Force. He had to overcome many obstacles related to his DVA claim for service-connected disability benefits and must now do the same with the Air Force. He served on active duty for 20 years, engaged in combat, was inserted into clandestine missions directed by parallel agencies, and denied awards to keep the military operations secret. His health has diminished and now, over 40 years later, the DVA requires him to furnish documentation that is classified secret. He requests the AFBCMR grant the requested relief based on its broad equitable powers. The Air Force granted him Combat Related Special Compensation at a rate of 80 percent disabled. If the Air Force acknowledges that he was involved in combat, then it should not be able to deny him promotion in rank and claim there is no evidence warranting promotion. His request raises extraordinary circumstances and the Board is urged to consider granting him equitable relief. He understands the question as to why he did not submit any claim to the DVA for benefits sooner after he retired from active duty. However, documentation that he needed to support his claims could not be validated until decades later because key documents were classified and not releasable. Prior to his separation he was debriefed and there was no mention of how to deal with classified missions and how to deal with claiming benefits from the DVA. He was diagnosed with Type II diabetes in 1979 and did not apply for DVA benefits because he could not prove that he served in areas where Agent Orange was used. He is certain the AFBCMR can make a decision through access to more complete documentation. The advisory opinions offered to the Board by examiners of his military personnel records are based upon the truth, but not the whole truth. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ 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 took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his response to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant’s argument that he is unable to obtain the documentation required to support his request as it is classified and therefore unavailable. While he believes the Board should request such documentation from the various agencies, or simply grant his requests outright based on the Board’s “broad equitable powers,” the applicant is reminded that the Board is not an investigative body and that the burden of proof of an error or injustice rests with each individual applicant. However, we note that AFPC/DPSOY has verified the applicant’s entitlement to the Korean Defense Service Medal, the Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Education Graduate Ribbon, and the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with three oak leaf clusters; his military personnel records will be corrected administratively. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend relief be granted beyond that rendered administratively. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02572 in Executive Session on 10 Jan 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered. Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 21 Jun 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AF/IM/AFDO, dated 30 Sep 10 w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 4 Oct 10. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 29 Nov 10. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Feb 11, w/atchs.