RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03224 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect: 1. His service in Vietnam. 2. He was awarded the Air Medal (AM). 3. He was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). 4. He was discharged at the rank/grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt)/E6. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There is no accounting for his service in Vietnam and no medals that correspond with that service. He was attached to the 834th Detachment 1 at Cam Rahn Bay and Tan San Nhut, Vietnam. He has over 40 combat missions and should have received the Air Medal. Additionally, he should have been promoted to E6. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of his Outstanding Crew Chief of the Month plaque and a copy of the 834th Air Division Fact Sheet. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 3 February 1969. His AF Form 7, Airman’s Record, lists his foreign service as Taiwan from 31 July 1969 to 31 October 1970. The applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt)/E5. His date of rank was 1 May 1972. He was honorably discharged on 12 January 1973 as an E5 and credited with serving 3 years, 11 months and 10 days of active duty service. He was also credited with 1 year and 2 months of foreign/ sea service. He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal during that term of service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial. The applicant’s military records confirm foreign service in Taiwan; however, there was no mention of Vietnam. A review of his evaluation states “While TDY with his aircraft at Forwarding Operating Locations…” While it is conceivable the forward locations mentioned could be Vietnam, DPAPP, unfortunately, could not make that determination. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. Promotions during that time were conducted under the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS). To be considered for promotion to E6, the applicant must have had 18 months time in grade, possess a 7 skill level, have 5 years total active federal military service, a current Promotion Fitness Examination and Specialty Knowledge Test scores and be recommended by the promotion authority. Based on the applicant’s time in service and time in grade, he would not have met the requirements for promotion to E6. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. There is no official documentation verifying the applicant was awarded or recommended for the award of the AM based on completion of 40 missions. DPAPP could not verify the applicant served time in Vietnam. Therefore, the applicant’s entitlement to any awards or decorations for Vietnam Service could not be verified. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 25 January 2012, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 and the available evidence of record in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While the applicant has a commendable record of service, regrettably, his record does not confirm he is entitled to the relief he seeks. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to favorable consider this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-2011-03224 in Executive Session on 15 March 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 8 Nov 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 5 Jan 12. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 26 Jan 12. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 12.