RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05886 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The number of days in combat on his Officer Efficiency Report (OER) rendered for the period of 1 Jul 44 to 31 Dec 44, in Item C. Stations at Which Officer Served and Duty Assignments, block listed as “Days,” be changed from “Blank” to “31 and an “X” be placed in the block listed under “Staff” as “Combat.” (Contested report was not found in the Master Personnel Record (MPR)). 2. The number of days in combat on his OER rendered for the period of 1 Jan 45 to 30 Jun 45, in Item C. Stations at Which Officer Served and Duty Assignments, block listed as “Days,” be changed from “Blank” to “59 and an “X” be placed in the block listed under “Staff” as “Combat.”. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He believes the record to be in error or unjust because he was placed on flight status from 1 Dec 44 to 28 Feb 45; was awarded the Air Medal for frequent flights over the Japanese empire for that period; was serving as a warrant officer in the Army Air Force. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his temporary duty (TDY) orders; aeronautical order, and order for award of an Air Medal. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 Aug 61, the applicant was relieved from active duty and on 1 Sep 61, was retired from the Regular Air Force in the grade of major. He was credited with 21 years, 2 months, and 5 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change any sections of the contested OER. The applicant has not provided evidence that the evaluation was unjust or wrong at the time that they were written. In addition, DPSID notes that they were not able to locate the OER with the inclusive period 1 Jul 44 through 31 Dec 44. The applicant requests that a correction be made to change Days of Combat = “0" to Days of Combat = “3l" on his OER for the period of I Jul 44 to 31 Dec 44. He further requests that a correction be made to change Days of Combat = “O" to Days of Combat = “59" on his OER for the period of 1 Jan 45 to 30 Jun 45. DPSID carefully reviewed the applicant's personnel record; however, while they were able to locate the OER with the inclusive period of 1 Jan 45 through 30 Jun 45, based on the limited evidence the applicant provided, it appears that the days the applicant desires to correct were not actual "Combat" days as the applicant was a weather observer officer on weather reconnaissance missions, not Combat missions. Furthermore, it appears the applicant was supporting reconnaissance missions which does not equate to Combat missions, but simply a participant of support missions which provides information to Combat units. Support units normally refers to units that provide operations assistance to combat elements, as well as provide specialized support functions to combat units; these by definition would fall under the weather reconnaissance missions; therefore it does not appear to justify actual Combat missions. Strong evidence must be provided by the applicant to overcome a report's presumed validity. The applicant does not provide any evidence within his case to substantiate the requested changes, and it is clearly not supported by the award of the air medal as there is no mention of combat responsibilities. Based on the absence of any evidence provided by the applicant, DPSID finds no justification to change the combat days and recommend that any sections of the OER remain unchanged. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Feb 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter. Therefore, 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-05886 in Executive Session on 26 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Feb 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 13. Panel Chair 3