RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02956 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, becorrected to show that he was awarded the Republic of VietnamCampaign Medal (RVCM). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The RVCM is not reflected on his DD Form 214. He served in Vietnam and needs this medal as proof of his Vietnam service tobe eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of hisDD Forms 214. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is atExhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served on active duty from 29 Oct 68 – 9 May 75. His DD Form 214 reflects 1 year, 2 months, and 6 days of ForeignService. The RVCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who between 1 Mar 61 and 28 Mar 73 served for six months in South Vietnam, or served outside the geographical limits ofSouth Vietnam and contributed direct combat support to the RVNArmed Forces for an aggregate of six months. Only members of theArmed Forces of the United States who meet the criteria established for the Air Force Expeditionary Medal (Vietnam) orthe Vietnam Service Medal during the period of service requiredare considered to have contributed direct combat support to theRVN Armed Forces. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states after a thoroughreview of the applicant’s military record, they were unable tolocate any official documentation stating the member served inVietnam. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was sent on temporary duty (TDY) to Anderson AFB duringOperation Linebacker II. It was supposed to be a 90 day TDY, butit turned out to be over nine months. While TDY to Anderson AFB, he was put on a Red Ball Team which consisted of a fivelevel specialist from each maintenance field. One of the B-52s was hit by a missile, but landed safely in DaNang AB, Vietnam. A 5-level maintenance specialist was needed torepair the B-52. He volunteered, and was sent to Da Nang AB. He does not remember exactly how long he was in Da Nang, but it wasclose to five or six months. If he received VA benefits, he would not be taking away fromsomeone more deserving. When he enlisted, his recruiter told himif he received an honorable discharge, he would receive medicalbenefits for the rest of his life. The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit D. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existinglaw or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in theinterest 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’srebuttal response, we are not persuaded that his records shouldbe corrected to show that he was awarded the RVCM. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, without documentary evidence to substantiate that he served for sixmonths in South Vietnam, or served outside its geographicallimits and contributed direct combat support to the RVN ArmedForces for an aggregate of six months, we find that he as notsustained his burden of having suffered either an error or aninjustice. Moreover, the evidence of record reflects that he was 2 not awarded either the Air Force Expeditionary Medal (Vietnam) orthe Vietnam Service Medal, which is a prerequisite for entitlement to the RVNCM, as it confirms that he contributeddirect combat support to the RVN Armed Forces. Should theapplicant provide additional evidence to substantiate that hemeets the criteria for the RVNCM, we would be willing toreconsider his request. Therefore, in view of the above and inthe absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis torecommend granting the relief sought in this application. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did notdemonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; thatthe application was denied without a personal appearance; andthat the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not consideredwith this application. The following members of the Board considered Docket NumberBC-2012-02956 in Executive Session on 5 Feb 13, under theprovisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 Sep 12. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, not dated.