RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01579
INDEX NUMBER: 107.00
COUNSEL: WILLIAM J. ADAMS
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that he be awarded the Purple Heart Medal for an
incident in the summer of 1969, in Bien Hoa, Vietnam, during a rocket
attack. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
Attempts to obtain the applicant’s service medical records have been
unsuccessful. Therefore, we cannot verify the applicant’s assertions
that he was wounded in the summer of 1969.
After careful consideration of applicant's request, we found
insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. Based upon the presumption
of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs and without
evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the applicant's records
are accurate and in compliance with appropriate directives.
Therefore, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this
application.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and will
only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant evidence
which was not available at the time the application was filed.
Members of the Board, Mr. John L. Robuck, Mr. Laurence M Groner, and
Mr.Philip Sheuerman, considered this application on 6 December 2001 in
accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603 and
the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
Exhibit:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01753 INDEX NUMBER: 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to reflect his discharge date as April 1967. A copy of the applicant’s Report of Separation, obtained from the Dept of Veterans Affairs, reflects that the applicant entered active duty on 19 December 1966...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. The applicant’s separation orders indicate that he was discharged under honorable conditions in the grade of airman basic on 20 November 1958 under the provisions of AFR 39-16 by reason of “Discharge of Unproductive Airman.” No further information concerning the applicant’s service is available. The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.