RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03093 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Vietnam Service be annotated on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: By 23 Dec 68, he had 43 combat missions into Southeast Asia and by the time of his discharge, he had over 100 combat missions. His plane had landed at every base in Vietnam to include Saigon, Da Nang, Bien Hoa, Nha Trang, Cam Ranh Bay, etc., that could support C-141 aircraft. He received combat pay every month between Dec 66 and Jun 70. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Jun 66, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 27 Jun 68, AF Form 909, Airman Performance Report, for period 24 Jun 68-23 Dec 68, his commander states he has flown over 934 hours including 28 combat support missions into Southeast Asia. On 24 Dec 68, AF Form 909, Airman Performance Report, for period 24 Jun 68-23 Dec 68, his commander states he flew over 500 hours including 15 combat support missions into Southeast Asia. On 23 Jun 70, the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable character of service. He was credited with 4 years of active service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial. DPSID was unable to factually confirm the applicant served in Vietnam. Based on documentation provided by the applicant, there was no evidence showing he served in Vietnam. His records did show that he was a loadmaster on a C-141. One of his performance reports stated he served 28 combat missions into Southeast Asia and another performance report states he served 15 combat missions in Southeast Asia. There was no documentation that listed any specific location in Southeast Asia. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant suggests using deductive reasoning to ascertain a conclusion that he served in Vietnam based on the records he provided. He reiterates the facts as follows: *His service was from 24 Jun 66 to 23 Jun 70 (DD Form 214; DD 1725) *During his service, Vietnam was a combat zone per Executive Order 11216 *His service was as a C-141 loadmaster based at Travis AFB, CA (AF 7, AF 909, 10 Aug 67) *He flew 28 combat support missions into Southeast Asia from Oct 66 until Jun 68 (AF 909, 27 Jun 68) *He flew 15 combat support missions into Southeast Asia from Jun 68 to Dec 68 (AF 909, 24 Dec 68) *From Dec 68 until discharge in Jun 70, he continued to fly combat support missions to an estimated total of about 100 (No further AF 909’s in his portfolio) *The Southeast Asian combat zone included Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand *C-141 aircraft could only land at air bases in Vietnam and Thailand *All C-141 combat support missions were airlifts. No tactical missions were flown. The AFBCMR stipulated to 43 combat missions into Southeast Asia (Advisory Letter dated 17 Nov 14). It appears the statement about “previous combat support missions” immediately following the statement of “28 combat support missions” on the AF 909 dated 27 Jun 68, was missed. That means he flew in excess of 43 missions by 24 Dec 68. The AF 909 dated 24 Dec 68 confirms 15 combat support missions for the period between that date and 27 Jun 68, the date of the previous AF 909. Fifteen missions in six months is an average of 2.5 missions per month. Applying math to the time he spent at Travis AFB as a C-141 Loadmaster (44 months), it would equate to 110 missions (44 months X 2.5 missions per month). Considering about five of these missions were to Thailand, and that no aircraft were allowed to land in Cambodia or Laos, the rest of the missions must have been to Vietnam, the only remaining country in the Southeast Asia combat zone where aircraft could land. All missions required landings to off and on load, meaning he spent each mission with actual “boots-on-the-ground.” He has requested payroll records, showing he received combat pay every month from approximately Dec 66 until his discharge in 1970. He provides copies of his DD Form 214, DD Form 1725, Executive Order 11216, AF Form 7, AF Form 909’s dated 10 Aug 67, 27 Jun 68 and 24 Dec 68. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 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 attachments and the applicant’s rebuttal to the Air Force advisory, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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. By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. XXXXXX voted to correct the record but does not desire to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03093 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit D. Applicant Letter, dated 7 Mar 15.