ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

      IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02009
            INDEX CODE: 110.00
                                  COUNSEL:  NONE
                                   HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record reflect he was  assigned  to  the  4133  Bomb  Wing  (4133  BW),
Provisional, at Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam for the period  17  Jul
67 through 26 Oct 67, and was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM).

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Nov 05, the Board considered and denied a  similar  appeal.   For  an
accounting of the facts surrounding his previous request and the  rationale
of the Board's earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings  at  Exhibit
F.

The applicant submitted several letters requesting the Board reconsider his
request for award of the VSM.  He provided additional support by  providing
an excerpt from DOD 1348.22-M, Manual of the Military Decorations  Program,
DOD Financial Management Regulation (FMR) and various other documents.  His
complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit G, and I thru L.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA recommends denial.  JAA states while his duty was honorable  and
may well have been superlative, these facts do not qualify him for the  VSM.
 In short, he did the right thing at the right time but  not  at  the  right
place.  Eligibility requirements for the VSM are set forth as broad  general
requirements  and  then  further  refined  by  specific  requirements.   The
relevant general requirement states that the VSM is awarded to  all  members
of the U.S. Armed Forces serving at any time between 4 Jul  65  and  28  Mar
73, in Thailand, Laos or Cambodia or the air spaces thereover and in  direct
support of operations in Vietnam.  Eligibility for the VSM is  thus  a  two-
prong test; to be eligible for the VSM the member’s service must  have  been
within specific locations and the service must have been in  direct  support
of operations  in  Vietnam.   Both  requirements  must  be  met  before  the
specific requirements set forth are considered.  Even if the  applicant  met
the second requirement he clearly did not meet the first.  In  his  petition
for reconsideration, the  applicant  submits  what  he  describes  as  newly
discovered evidence citing various provisions of DOD FMR in support  of  his
assertions that the DOD Manual should be  read  in  a  manner  in  which  he
interprets it.  These provisions addressing qualification  for  combat  zone
income tax exclusion are not relevant to eligibility  for  the  VSM  or  any
other military award or decoration.  JAA believes the applicant  has  failed
to demonstrate the existence  of  an  error  or  to  present  any  facts  or
circumstances supporting an injustice with reference to his application.

The complete JAA evaluation is at Exhibit I.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the JAA evaluation, applicant responded stating he does  not
agree with the advisory opinion.  The Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) permits
the Navy to award the VSM and AFEM using SECNAV  Instruction  1650.1G.   In
support of his request, he provided copies of additional documentation  for
the Board’s consideration to include the  history  of  the  43RD  Strategic
Wing, Air Force Historical Research Agency  documents,  SECNAV  Instruction
1650.1G, excerpts from DOD 1348.33-M and various other documents.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit N.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After again reviewing  this  application  and  the  additional  evidence
provided in support of the appeal, we find no evidence which would  lead  us
to believe that corrective action is warranted.  As noted  in  our  original
decision, the applicant has provided no evidence showing he meets the  "area
of operations" criteria for award of the VSM.  While he may have  served  in
support of operations in Vietnam, the  qualifying  criteria  established  by
DoD Manual 1348.33-M also requires that the  individual  have  served  in  a
specific area of  eligibility.   We  note  his  assertion  that  the  SECDEF
permits the Navy  to  award  the  VSM  and  AFEM  using  SECNAV  Instruction
1650.1G.  We reviewed the fragmented excerpts provided by the applicant  and
remain unpersuaded that  he  meets  the  criteria  for  award  of  the  VSM.
Further, the Air Force is not bound by the policies  of  other  branches  of
service, which are distinct and separate by nature of the  duties  involved.
Therefore, we agree with the assessment of the Office of the Judge  Advocate
General and adopt its rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of  proof  of  the  existence  of
either an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in  this
application.

2.  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
our understanding of the issues  involved.  Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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 BC-2005-02009  in  Executive
Session on 23 Oct 08 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
                 Mr.  Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Mr.  Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
                 Mr.  Kurt R. LaFrance, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Dec 05,
w/Exhibits.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant not dated, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 22 Jun 07.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Sep 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Oct 07, w/atchs.
  Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Oct 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit L.  Letter, Senator Lugar, dated 18 Aug 08, w/atchs.
      Exhibit M.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Aug 08.
      Exhibit N.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Sep 08, w/atchs.




            THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
            Chair