RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00339

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NOT INDICATED

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to indicate he attended the following schools:

	a. Heavy Truck Driving
	b. Security Police School

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was exposed to radiation while he was on a temporary duty assignment with the Security Police guarding atomic bombs, which were the source of his exposure to radiation.  The omission of his attendance in the aforementioned schools prevents him from receiving Veterans benefits for his bladder cancer.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 13 September 1957.

According to AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, the applicant had Foreign Service in Morocco from 4 June 1959 to 6 June 1959.  In addition, he was assigned to Hunter AFB from 5 July 1959 to 27 August 1959 and again on 29 December 1959.

On 12 September 1961, the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable character of service, and was credited with 4 years of active service, and 1 year and 3 days of Foreign and/or Sea Service.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2LWD recommends denying the application as there is no evidence the applicant attended the schools in question.  A temporary job assignment with security police is commonly known as augmentee duty.  Augmentees typically only receive local training, such as ancillary or on-the-job training; however, this training is not maintained in the Military Personnel Data System because it is not considered formal training.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 7 February 2018 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 27 February 2018.  In his response, the applicant contends that when he reported to Morocco, he was required to attend truck-driving school, which was conducted by the Moroccans.  He received orders to attend this school; however, the course is not listed on his DD Form 214.  Following his isolated tour in Morocco, he was assigned to Hunter Air Base.  Due a large number of security alerts, the base commander implemented an augmentation program, which increased the number of personnel required to guard Strategic Air Command resources.  Augmentee guards were required to have Secret security clearances and because his job in the communications squadron required him to have a Secret clearance, he was selected to augment the Security Police.  This required him to attend a weeklong Security Police school, which is not included on his DD Form 214.  His duties included guarding munitions crews during the loading of atomic bombs.  He was not issued any safety gear, but was required to wear a radiation detector on his dog chain at all times.  He continued his augmentee duties until he was transferred to B-52 Flight Computer School in September 1960.  He questions how the OPR can recommend his case be denied because of insufficient evidence when the data required to make a positive recommendation was omitted from his records by its own personnel.  These events occurred about 60 years ago when certificates were not provided for additional duties.  He has been treated by the Department of Veterans Administration for hearing loss and tinnitus and is still under their care; however, he was denied care for a service connected health issue.  He will provide an affidavit for his statement if required.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Advisor does not make a recommendation.  He determined that it is feasible that radiation exposure can contribute to the development of certain cancers; however, in this instance, it is not clear of the timing of the symptoms and subsequent diagnosis with bladder cancer.  There would be more of a correlation if others in the applicant’s security forces augmentee unit also developed malignancies; even more so if the malignancies were of the same type.  While it is plausible that the applicant performed duties in proximity to nuclear material, by virtue of his report of wearing a radiation detection badge, the Medical Advisor leaves the task of establishing a nexus between his bladder cancer with his occupational exposures to the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 18 June 2018 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AF Training and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Should the applicant provide evidence that he was exposed to radiation during his military service; the Board may be willing to reconsider his request.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-00339 in Executive Session on 26 July 2018:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 3 February 2017.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2LWD, dated 6 February 2018.
Exhibit D: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 7 February 2018.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 27 February 2018.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, BCMR Medical Advisor, dated 11 June 2018.
Exhibit G: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 18 June 2018.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.