ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01223
INDEX CODE: 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF Form 11, Officer Military Record, be corrected to show he served in
the Laos in a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) secret war.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who served on
active duty from 2 Jan 51 until his 1 Jul 74 retirement in the grade of
lieutenant colonel. He served a total of 20 years and 3 days active
service.
His DD214 reflects award of the Bronze Star Medal W/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
(OLC), the Korean Service Medal, the Air Medal w/14 OLCs, the National
Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, w/4 Bronze Service Stars,
the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Joint Service Commendation
Medal, and the Air Force Commendation Medal.
His records reflect Foreign Service in Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand.
On 14 Jun 05, the applicant sent a memorandum to the Secretary of the Air
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC), stating the Air Force created the
falsehood 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
in 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 to have their records altered to deceive any
future reader as to where the person was actually located.
On 21 Jun 05, the SAFPC informed the applicant they 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 that they
research records in support of his application was denied, based on the
fact that his request is not within the scope of their authority or
responsibility. Further, it would be inappropriate for them to advocate or
submit evidence in his behalf.
His application was considered and denied by the Board on 5 May 06. For an
accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s
initial request, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board,
see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I.
On 23 Apr 06, the applicant’s daughter submitted a short summary of her
memories of her life with him in Laos.
During the period 30 Apr 06 to 15 Feb 07, the applicant provides several
letters in which he requests reconsideration of his appeal and provides
additional documentation. The applicant contends the following:
a. Although he is not named on the temporary duty orders (TDY), some
of the people worked for him and many of the names are familiar to
him. The fact to be gained from the orders is that men were
routinely posted to Udorn Air Base, Thailand, then crossed the
border and served their TDY in Laos.
b. There is material error and injustice involved for not only
himself, but hundreds of other Air Force personnel who served on
the ground in Laos, but whose individual personnel records do not
reflect the location of their service. Further, they do not
provide the location of many of their deaths. They served our
country in the Vietnam War, but not in Vietnam; they served in
Laos.
c. It is an injustice that the Board relies on the individual
personnel records since those records do not reflect service in Laos where
Agent Orange was used. The records only show that they served in Thailand,
where the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) benefits are vastly different
as one is a combat zone and the other is not. A former commander died of
symptoms closely akin to those suffered by those who were exposed to Agent
Orange. He served in Vietnam and Laos, and the DVA awarded him disability
due to exposure to Agent Orange. If his records did not show service in
Vietnam the DVA would have denied his claim.
d. His Senator is taking up the cause of the veterans who served in
Laos but have gone unrecognized. He will introduce legislation that places
the burden of proof on the United States government to show that someone
claiming to have served in Laos was not there.
e. The DVA overturned their decision to deny another veteran’s
disability due to exposure to Agent Orange after a brigadier general
intervened on his behalf.
f. The Air Force made a mistake and it has caused untold and
unnecessary grief for Air Force personnel ever since. Throw in the towel,
and join him in admitting that he served on the ground in Laos. Yes, they
were there in violation of the Geneva Accords of 1962.
g. He and others received the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). The
citation hints that he collected intelligence information. They were given
credit in the form of a DFC for discovering a major enemy supply route,
which branched off from the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
h. He and other veterans who served in Laos and who were sprayed with
Agent Orange got a boost in spirits recently when a Court of Appeals
returned a claim for DVA benefits to the next lower level with a conclusion
that being sprayed with Agent Orange extended to Navy personnel serving
aboard ships that patrolled along the South Vietnamese coast. Why not
extend that to those personnel who served in Laos?
i. About the same time the United States got involved in Laos,
personnel records of those involved were not updated to record TDY
assignments. His personnel records were sanitized when he rejoined his
parent unit in Bangkok, Thailand. All references to TDYs were omitted.
Documentation was also missing from his medical records.
In further support of the appeal, applicant submits a detailed letter
describing missions carried out in Laos.
The applicant’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice to warrant amending the applicant’s AF Form
11, to show he served in Laos. In this respect, we note the evidence of
records shows he was awarded an Air Force Commendation Medal covering the
period (1 Jul 64 to 31 Jul 64.) The citation to accompany the award of the
AFCM attests to his outstanding achievements as an Air Intelligence Officer
at a classified location, and his efforts of putting into operation an
operational intelligence system for the Air Force of a friendly foreign
nation. The evidence of record also reflects that in 1966, the applicant
and several others were awarded the DFC for their extraordinary
achievements during separate classified missions. Further, the applicant’s
daughter provided a detailed statement, noting her memories of living with
her father and other family members in Laos. As such, the Board is
persuaded by the aforementioned evidence that the applicant has overcome
the burden of proof to substantiate that he served in Laos. The Board is
aware and our history has shown that during the Vietnam conflict, the
United States armed forces were involved in covert military operations with
friendly nations including Laos. In our opinion, the applicant has
overcome the burden of proof that he served in Laos, and that an error or
injustice occurred with regard to annotating his records to reflect the
time he actually served there. In view of this, we recommend the
applicant’s records be corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer Military Record, AF
Form 11, Officer Military Record, be and hereby is, amended, in Section 3,
“Foreign Service”, by inserting a line, in its proper sequence, to reflect
“Date Departed”, 13 Oct 64, “Location”, Laos, “Date Returned”, 10 Aug 66.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
01223 in Executive Session on 29 October 2008 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia r. Collins, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
All members voted to correct the record, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit I. Record of Proceedings, dated 5 May 06,
with Exhibits A through H.
Exhibit J. Applicant's Letters, dated 23 Apr 06
through 15 Feb 07, w/atchs.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01223
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. 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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01347
On 5 Feb 09, the DVA notified the applicant that Veterans who set foot in Vietnam during the Vietnam Conflict are considered to have been exposed to Agent Orange since it was widely used. The RVNCM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who served for six months in South Vietnam, during the period 1 Mar 61 to 28 Mar 73 or who served outside the geographical limits of the Republic of Vietnam and contributed direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam and Armed...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00722
His Air Force Form 7 does show he was TDY to Southeast Asia for a total of 97 days during 1969. Although the applicant provided no evidence to show actual locations while TDY to Southeast Asia (SEA), it was noted that his DD Form 214 reflects award of the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVCM). The DVA denied his request because his military records reflect service in Southeast Asia (SEA), but not specifically in Vietnam.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02870
However, the DVA denied his claim because he could not provide a copy of his TDY orders or any official verification that he ever deployed to Thailand during the Vietnam War. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 29 Oct 12, by letter, the applicant reiterates his original contentions. _________________________________________________________________ The following...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01693
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01693 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 be corrected to give him credit for time spent in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia while he was assigned to Thailand. He knows that there are no official records that state that he spent time in Vietnam, Laos,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04137
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04137 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) be exchanged for the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). However, no Service member may have both medals for service in Vietnam. While the applicant was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) and the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018111
The evidence of record also shows that the citation for the applicant's Exceptional Service Medallion presented by the CIA clearly shows he was wounded in Laos while on a special assignment from the Army and that a request for the Purple Heart should be requested through Army channels. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to show the applicant is entitled to award of the Purple Heart and correction of his records to show this award. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02942
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02942 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he received the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) for his service in Vietnam and Thailand. He spent over 20 total months in Thailand, Vietnam, and Okinawa in 1967, 1968, and 1969. The remaining relevant facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00951
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00951 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect military service in Vietnam. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that he had boots-on-the-ground in the Republic of Vietnam. The following documentary evidence was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005279
There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant's unit served in direct support of operations in Vietnam. Members in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia during the same period and serving in direct support of operations in Vietnam are also eligible for the Vietnam Service Medal. There is no evidence of record and the applicant has provided no evidence which shows that while serving in Thailand he served in direct support of operations in Vietnam as defined by the awards regulation.