RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2019-00531

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED:  NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Correct his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, to reflect:

1.	Viet Nam service
2.	Viet Nam Service medal (administratively corrected)

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

While applying for veteran’s medical coverage, the applicant discovered his DD Form 214 was incorrect and did not indicate service in Viet Nam.  Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 578.26 indicates the Viet Nam Service medal goes to individuals participating in bombing missions over Viet Nam and also to individuals spending time in Thailand.

The applicant was assigned as a B-52 maintenance crew chief at xxxx Air Force Base, xxxxxx, but was sent on three tours to Guam where he was required to fly at least 15 bombing missions with the flight crew.  He was also sent to U-tapao, Thailand twice with the aircraft for typhoon evacuations from Guam.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an honorably discharged Air Force staff sergeant (E-5).

On 6 Oct 67 through 31 Dec 67, the applicant was assigned to temporary duty in Guam in support of project ARC LIGHT.

On 28 Mar 68 through 26 Sep 68, the applicant was assigned to temporary duty with the xxxxx Bomb Wing (Provisional), Guam in support of project ARC LIGHT.

On 19 Mar 70, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge and credited with 3 years, 10 months active service, of which 7 months, 22 days were 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/DP3AM recommends denying the application.  DP3AM was able to verify and confirm foreign service boots on ground on two different occasions in Guam, but unable to verify a third service.  Additionally, DP3AM was unable to verify any foreign service in Thailand.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 30 Oct 19 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

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

3.  After 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 AFPC/DP3AM and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

In an earlier Executive Session, following thorough reviews of the evidence of record and the documentation submitted in support of three complex requests for relief, the Board recommended deferral of these cases.  The Board found that these requests required additional evaluations from appropriate Air Force offices of primary responsibility in order to assist the Board in determining if a material error or injustice occurred and, if so, determine appropriate avenues for relief.  Subsequent to lengthy evaluations, a second Executive Session was convened and recommendations were rendered for the deferred case.  With the recommendation apportioned to the three complex cases, this second executive session completes the adjudication recommendation required for the nine cases considered by this Board.  

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-2019-00531 in Executive Session on 3 Dec 19 and 9 Dec 20:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3AM, dated 20 Jun 19.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 30 Oct 19.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9., for Docket Number BC-2019-00531.