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