RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03160 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be corrected to show the following: 1. He served in Thailand (Administratively Corrected). 2. He served in the Philippines (Administratively Corrected). 3. He served in Vietnam. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In Apr 1975, he was on Temporary Duty (TDY) at Ton Son Nhut AB, Vietnam. He flew on many missions in and out of Vietnam during the evacuation. He left on a helicopter from the embassy building in Saigon on 29 Apr 1975 and was one of the last out of Vietnam. He discovered the error on his DD Form 214 after retiring from the police department in 2011. He assumes the error may have occurred as his assignments were in a TDY status. In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, e-mail communique, letter of support and other various documents associated with his requests. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Jul 1972, the applicant entered active duty. On 2 Jul 1976, he was released from active duty. He served 3 years, 11 months and 27 days on active duty. On 19 Aug 2013, AFPC/DPAPP advised the applicant they were able to verify his Boots on the Ground (BOG) service in Thailand and the Philippines. However, they were unable to verify Vietnam service and requested he provide documentation to verify his service in Vietnam (Exhibit C). In a response to DPAPP dated 3 Sep 2013, the applicant states he flew on missions in and out of Vietnam on C-141 and KC- 131 aircrafts and that his name may possibly be on the manifests and provides the name of his commanding officer at the time. He searched all records at his disposal and has no other information available nor has any idea on how to go about finding those documents. His assignment to Vietnam was a TDY and because it was not a permanent duty station, he fears this is the reason why it is so difficult to track down. His service time in Vietnam is very important to him. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DPAPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to amend his records to reflect service in Vietnam. The information provided by the applicant and a review of his master personnel records did not contain any information that shows he served in Vietnam. DPAPP will administratively correct his records to reflect his service at Clark AB, Philippines, and Takhli AB, Thailand. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 Oct 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit F). _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 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, other than the administrative corrections amending the applicant’s records to reflect foreign service at Clark AB, Philippines, and Takhli AB, Thailand, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-03160 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documents were considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 19 Aug 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Sep 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 8 Oct 2013. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2013. Panel Chair 1