RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02665
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive credit for his service in the Republic of Vietnam.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While he was serving in Taiwan, he went on a Temporary Duty 
(TDY) assignment to DaNang Vietnam as a Voice Intercept Operator 
(Mandarin Chinese).  His military records does not show this TDY 
which to his recollection was for 90 days beginning in Apr or 
May 65.  

He was sprayed with Agent Orange and has neuropathy; ringing in 
his ears; lost all his teeth, and has frontal lobe dementia.  He 
is not eligible for care with the Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) because his wife’s income is too high.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge, issued in conjunction with his 15 Jul 
68 separation; DD Form 4, Enlistment Record; AF Form 7, Airman 
Military Record; electronic mail from former members and various 
other documents.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Jul 64, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
for a period of four years.  On 15 Jul 68, he was honorably 
released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force 
Reserve.  He was credited with 4 years of active duty service, 
including 1 year, 2 months and 21 days of foreign service.

The AF Form 7 reflects in Item 19, Chronological Record of 
Service, an assignment to Shu Lin Kou Air Station, Taiwan, from 
Oct 65 to Jan 67.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for 
service credit in Vietnam.  DPAPP notes that the information 
provided in the master personnel records does not contain 
information that reflects that the applicant served in the 
Republic of Vietnam.  

However, they were able to verify and confirm foreign service 
boots on ground in Taiwan, from 22 Oct 65 to 12 Jan 67.

The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Subsequent to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant submitted 
an inquiry through his Member of Congress stating that even 
though he has provided witness statement testimony, the Air 
Force won’t acknowledge he was there.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
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 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 (OPR) and 
adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that relief 
beyond that already granted administratively is not warranted.  
In addition, while we note the witness testimony submitted in 
the applicant’s behalf, we did not find the evidence sufficient 
to establish his service in Vietnam.  Should the applicant 
provide additional documentation, e.g., travel voucher or orders 
to substantiate his service in Vietnam, we would be willing to 
reconsider his appeal.  In view of the above and in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend 
granting further relief 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-2013-02665 in Executive Session on 25 March 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 May 13, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 25 Jun 13.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant’s Member of Congress, 
                 dated 6 Dec 13, w/atchs.




                                   Panel Chair