RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01223
            INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX     HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 OCT 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AF Form 11, Officer Military Record, Item 5, be corrected to  show
he served in Laos in a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) secret war.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His military records make no reference to his service during  the  CIA
Secret War in the Royal Kingdom of Laos.  He  was  denied  awards  and
decorations for his achievements while serving in Laos because of  the
secrecy of their mission.

In support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  six  personal
statements, a copy of his DD  Form  214,  Report  of  Separation  from
Active Duty, AF Form 11, AF Form 678, Temporary Duty Order - Military,
three Certificates of Authentication, and a copy of US Foreign Policy,
1964-1968, Volume XXVIII, Laos, Message  135:  Information  Memorandum
from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far  Eastern  Affairs
(Green) to Secretary of State Rusk dated, 1 October 1964.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Navy Reserve on 22 August 1948  and  was
honorably discharged on 31 August 1950.  He enlisted  in  the  Regular
Air Force on 2 January 1951 in the grade of private for  a  period  of
three years.  The applicant was discharge on 20 March 1952, to  accept
a commission as a second lieutenant.  He was progressively promoted to
the grade of lieutenant colonel and retired in that grade  on  1  July
1974.  He served a total of 20 years and 3 days total active service.

His DD214 reflects award of the Bronze Star Medal, the Korean  Service
Medal, the Air Medal w/14 Oak  Leaf  Clusters,  the  National  Defense
Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal w/4 Bronze Service Stars, the
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the Joint Service Commendation
Medal.

His records reflect Foreign Service in Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand.

On 14 June 2005, the applicant sent a memorandum to the  Secretary  of
the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), stating the Air Force created
the falsehood that there were no Air Force  personnel  on  the  ground
inside Laos during the CIA Secret  War  in  Laos.   He  suggests  that
personnel clerks routinely falsified personnel records  to  show  that
personnel were located  somewhere  else,  usually  Thailand  or  South
Vietnam.  He believes this suggests that somewhere  there  is  an  Air
Force regulation or instruction directing Air Force personnel  serving
in Laos have their records altered to deceive any future reader as  to
where the person was actually located.

On 21 June 2005, the SAFPC informed the applicant that office did  not
have the authority or power to  implement  or  direct  policy  changes
impacting individual, unit, or campaign awards for American or Foreign
Armed Forces personnel.  SAFPC also informed the applicant his request
for that office to research records in support of his application  was
denied, based on the fact that his request is not within the scope  of
that office’s authority or responsibility and it is  inappropriate  to
be an advocate or submit evidence in his behalf.  (See Exhibit B)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial.  DPAPP states documentation on  file  in
the  applicant’s  master  personnel  records  does  not  contain   any
information that supports his claim for temporary duty to Laos.

The DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states the office of primary responsibility  (OPR)  took
the easy way out by  only  checking  the  National  Personnel  Records
Center (NPRC).  The records  at  the  NPRC  contain  many  errors  and
deliberate falsehoods directly attributable to the official Air  Force
policy to deny that there were  any  Air  Force  members  in  Laos  in
violation of the Geneva Accords of 1962.  He

states the OPR did not check records at the Department of State or the
CIA.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states the applicant’s official  record
makes no reference to actual  ground  service  in  Laos.   There  are,
however, references  made  to  service  in  classified  and  sensitive
locations and in support of the Air  Attaché  to  Laos  and  Operation
Triangle.  His officer effectiveness report (OER) covering 1  November
1965 through 31 October 1966, notes in section VII  that  he  was  the
sole representative in a friendly  foreign  agency  located  some  250
miles from his parent organization.  The indorsing  official  in  that
report  goes  on  to  state  that  additional  details  regarding  his
accomplishments cannot be provided because of sensitivity.  In section
VII of his performance report from 19 December  1963  to  18  December
1964 it is noted that the applicant was assigned  duty  with  the  Air
Attaché, Laos to assist in establishing  and  operating  a  classified
operation.  In a citation to accompany the  award  of  the  Air  Force
Commendation Medal dated 10  August  1966,  it  is  written  that  the
applicant, at a classified location, contributed immeasurably  to  the
success of Operation Triangle.  Another citation,  dated  12  November
1966, cites presence only at a classified location with no language to
further narrow the location.

JA states an Air Force Form 93-11, Report of  Medical  History,  makes
reference to the applicant’s possible presence in Laos.  Clearly,  the
applicant was involved in sensitive classified operations.

JA states  that  according  to  the  applicant  he  did  not  file  an
application for correction of his records until 8 July  2005,  because
the fact that the United States was violating Geneva Accords  of  1962
was treated as classified information until  recently.   He  does  not
provide any specific  information  as  to  when  the  information  was
declassified.  The report The Defense of  Attopeu,  dated  15  January
1971, the secret classification on the report has been marked out, but
there  is  no  indication  when  the  report  was  declassified.   The
applicant does not provide any information that  the  declassification
occurred  within  the  three  years  preceding  his  submission.   The
applicant has the burden of proof that his filing is timely or that  a
valid excuse exists for failing  to  meet  the  requirement.   He  has
failed to do so.

Consequently, JA recommends the application  be  denied  as  untimely.
Moreover, on the merits, the applicant has failed to  establish  by  a
preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  there  exists  some  error  or
injustice warranting corrective action by the board.

According to JA, the evidence of record would certainly  suggest  that
the applicant likely served some time in  Laos  during  his  Southeast
Asian service.  Nevertheless, for the reasons to follow,  that  office
does not think the applicant’s AF Form 11, or any other  part  of  his
record, is in error.  Whether or not applicant actually spent time  in
Laos during the alleged time periods, the fact is that  the  applicant
was assigned to locations in Vietnam and Thailand during the times  in
question.  Even if he was sent on extended missions into Laos, he  was
still assigned to  organizations  located  in  the  foreign  countries
listed on his AF Form 11 and that form is intended to  reflect  places
of actual assignment and not all those places where a member may  have
performed duty.  As  to  whether  the  failure  to  specifically  list
applicant’s service in Laos is an injustice, the United  States  Court
of Federal Claims has repeatedly defined an injustice as that behavior
or an action that rises to a level of shocking the conscience.

JA states, the applicant, in a letter  to  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), dated 8 April 2005,  contends
that the omission of service inside Laos in a member’s service  record
is an injustice in and of  itself.   He  also  contends  that  service
members  to  include  himself,  were  denied  awards  and  decorations
recognition for their achievements and heroisms, because they  weren’t
there.

JA states having determined that the  applicant’s  record  is  not  in
error, that office is of the opinion that  the  omission  of  specific
mention of service  in  Laos  does  not  shock  the  conscience.   The
applicant’s service records show no break  in  service  for  the  time
period at issue, and he has proven no actual detrimental effect to his
service record of the benefits of service he  received.   He  was  not
denied any special pay or promotion or even recognition as a result of
his service in Laos not being specifically mentioned.  In fact, he was
fully recognized for the contested time  period  having  received  two
awards  and  glowing  officer  performance  reports   (OPRs),   making
reference  to  his  support  in  classified  locations  and  sensitive
missions.

According to JA the applicant in his 8 April 2005 letter,  also  makes
reference to his exposure to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam and
his resulting VA rating of 70 percent disability.  In this letter, the
applicant writes that he could have just as  easily  been  exposed  to
Agent Orange in Laos, as his military records do not  reflect  service
there.

JA opines that the applicant has failed to show an injustice  in  this
instance.  JA states the applicant’s disability claim was accepted and
rated  by  the  Veterans  Administration  and  conjecture  is  not   a
sufficient basis for a finding of injustice.

JA states the application is untimely, that the applicant  has  failed
to prove and error or injustice warranting relief and the  application
should be denied.


The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The applicant  states  AFPC/JA  failed  to  take  into  account  other
existing precedents used in  the  United  States  Government  and  the
United States Air Force, which are a matter of  United  States  Public
Law.   He  believes  clandestine  and  covert  military   intelligence
operations are a special category of military operation  and  as  such
are treated different than other  more  routing  military  operations.
Specifically, in  regards  to  military  awards  and  decorations  for
achievements and actions accomplished while on those  clandestine  and
covert military intelligence operations a special item of  legislation
has been written.  In Section 523 of Public Law 104-106, as amended by
Public Law 105-85, div.A, title V, Section 575, 18 November 1997,  111
stat. 1758, in which it is provided that:  (a) Waiver on  Restrictions
of Awards: - (1) Any  decoration  covered  by  paragraph  (2)  may  be
awarded, without regard to any time limit imposed by law or regulation
for a recommendation for  such  award,  to  any  person  for  an  act,
achievement, or service that the  person  performed  in  carrying  out
military intelligence duties during the period beginning of 1  January
1940, and ending on 31 December 1990.

The  applicant  states  this  legislation  was  crafted  to  recognize
military intelligence personnel for their  achievements  and  actions,
which could not be recognized at the time of their acts.

He summarizes by stating if a military intelligence person assigned to
special duty achieved a recognizable  feat  or  performed  an  act  of
heroism while on a military mission, there was no time limit  to  when
that person could be recommended for  a  suitable  military  award  or
decoration if that act occurred between 1940 and 1990.

The applicant opines that AFPC/JA was unaware of the existence of this
public law prior to the 1 November 2005 advisory opinion and  if  that
office had been aware of it, would have  related  that  law  with  his
military intelligence duties and  rendered  an  opinion  in  favor  of
recognizing his service in Laos.   Had  AFPC/JA  been  aware  of  this
legislation and its association with clandestine military intelligence
operations, that  office  would  have  waived  the  time  requirements
usually used by the AFBCMR.

The applicant contends that it is  indeed  shocking  that  the  United
States Government has for forty  years  refused  to  acknowledge  that
military troops were on the ground inside the Royal  Kingdom  of  Laos
from 1964 to 1973 in violation of the Geneva Accords of  1962.   Forty
years later,  in  addition  to  denying  service  members  awards  and
decorations, the Veterans Administration is denying veterans  some  of
those benefits that are rightfully theirs for serving in Laos.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  In this  respect,  we  note  the
applicable entries on the AF Form 11,  Officer  Military  Record,  are
intended to record actual organizations and places of  assignment,  to
which a member was assigned.  Further, while  applicant  contends  the
classified  nature  of  his  duties  prevented  recognition   of   his
accomplishments, his record contains decoration  citations  indicating
that  he  was  assigned  to  classified  locations   and   contributed
immeasurably to the success of Operation Triangle.   The  Staff  Judge
Advocate (SJA) has provided a  thorough  evaluation  which  more  than
adequately addresses the issues raised by applicant, and the  comments
contained therein, are supported by the evidence of record.  Hence, we
agree with the opinions and recommendation of the SJA  and  adopt  his
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that applicant has not  been
the  victim  of  error  or  injustice.   The  personal  sacrifice  the
applicant has endured for his country is noted and our decision should
in no  way  lessen  his  service;  however,  insufficient  documentary
evidence  has  been  presented  to  warrant  disturbing  his   record.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
01223 in Executive Session on 27 April 2006, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 13 May 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 05.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jun 05.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 1 Nov 05.
      Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 05.
      Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Nov 05.






      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair