RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02572 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be 
corrected to reflect the following awards, decorations and 
badges: 

 

a. The Air Force Distinguished Service Medal. 
b. The Presidential Unit Citation (United States). 
c. The Presidential Unit Citation (Republic of Korea). 
d. The Legion of Merit. 
e. The Air Force Reserve Meritorious Service Medal. 
f. The Meritorious Service Medal. 
g. The Air Medal. 
h. The Combat Readiness Medal. 
i. The Air Force Organizational Excellence Award. 
j. The Air Force Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon 
k. The Joint Service Commendation Medal. 
l. The Air Force Recruiter Ribbon. 
m. The United Nations Medal. 
n. The NATO Medal. 
o. The Navy Unit Commendation. 
p. The Valorous Unit Award. 
q. The Finance and Acquisition Badge. 
r. The Observer Badge. 
s. The Command and Control Badge. 


 

2. He be promoted to the rank of chief master sergeant (E-9) or 
in the alternative to the rank of chief warrant officer (W-4). 

 

3. His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect all declassified 
Foreign and Domestic individual combat awards and combat unit 
awards to which he may be entitled. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He may be entitled to decorations that are not reflected in 
his military personnel records due to the classified nature of 
the missions he performed. He was “sheep dipped” (involved in 
covert operations associated with intelligence agencies) and many 
of the missions in which he participated were classified. 
Therefore, decorations were not submitted and individuals were 


not recognized for their efforts in support of these classified 
missions. 

 

2. He supported special operations and intelligence missions and 
held positions that were not commensurate with his rank and pay 
grade. His enlisted performance reports (EPRs) reflect laudatory 
comments by his superiors and he was recommended for promotion by 
his supervisors on numerous occasions. He may have been denied 
promotion because he was not assigned to an Air Force billet 
during the time he was “sheep dipped” and his records were 
maintained by intelligence agencies outside of the Air Force. 
Given the period of history that he served, it is possible that 
he was discriminated against based on his race which may have 
been a factor in him not being promoted to a higher rank. The 
Special Experience Identifier (SEI) 998 (Chief Enlisted Manager 
(CEM)/Superintendent Level) proves that he was involved in 
operations performed by higher ranking individuals. Defense 
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) records and pay vouchers 
indicate that he performed duties of a clandestine nature outside 
of the Regular Air Force for Headquarters Air Force, the 
Department of the Army, the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
Air Force Form 7, Airman Military Record, DD Form 214, AF Form 
1267, Record of Travel Payments, DD Form 1588, Record of Travel 
Payments, and five supporting statements. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 May 1956 
and was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant 
(E-6). He retired in that grade on 1 Jun 76 and served a total 
of 20 years and 7 days of active duty service. 

 

On 26 Oct 10, AFPC/DPSIDR notified the applicant of his 
entitlement to the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Three 
Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters (AFOUA w/3BOLC), the Korean Defense 
Service Medal (KDSM), and the Non-Commissioned Officer 
Professional Education Graduate Ribbon (NCOPMEGR) 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are described in 
the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, 
which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HAF/IM/AFDO indicates they have no position concerning the 
applicant’s request for promotion to the grade of chief master 
sergeant (E-(9). Their office was contacted by the applicant’s 
son seeking information about a series of Freedom of Information 
Act (FOIA) requests that he submitted to various Air Force 
offices requesting documents pertaining to his father’s service 
in Vietnam. AFDO reviewers spent hundreds of man-hours seeking 
evidence of his father’s military service. Documents such as 
temporary duty travel statements and extracts from the 
applicant’s records failed to help locate documentation 
connecting him with service in Vietnam. 

 

The complete AFDO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial regarding the applicant’s request 
for promotion. The applicant had ample time to inquire about his 
promotion considerations prior to his retirement in 1976. He 
provides no supporting evidence of an error or injustice 
regarding his considerations for promotion. He asserts only 
possibilities as to why he was not promoted when he felt he 
should have been throughout his career. 

 

Prior to the inception of the Weighted Airman Promotion System 
(WAPS) in 1970, promotions were made at the Major Command, unless 
authority was delegated by the Major Command to the Wing, Group, 
or Squadron levels. HQ USAF distributed promotion quotas to the 
Major Commands based on projected vacancies within each career 
field subdivision. Promotion boards selected individuals and the 
quotas received determined the number of personnel that could be 
promoted. Some career fields received more promotions than 
others based on vacancies and the needs of the Air Force. Basic 
eligibility requirements such as time in grade, skill level, and 
recommendation by the commander were necessary for consideration, 
but in no way guaranteed promotion. Supervisors and commanding 
officers at the time were in a better position to evaluate the 
applicant’s potential and eligibility for promotion. 

 

There are no official documents or promotion orders in the 
applicant’s military personnel records to indicate he was 
selected or promoted beyond the rank of technical sergeant. 
Based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to technical sergeant 
he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to master 
sergeant under WAPS beginning with cycle 71A7. They are unable 
to verify his promotion scores for any cycle for which he was 
considered as promotion histories are only maintained for a 
period of ten years. Ten years is generally considered an 
adequate period to resolve any promotion inquires or concerns. 

 

Additionally, the application has not been filed within the 
three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force 
Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 
3.5.1, dated 1 Mar 96. Therefore, the application may also be 


dismissed under the equitable doctrine of laches which denies 
relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed 
asserting a claim. Laches consist of two elements; inexcusable 
delay and prejudice to the Air Force resulting there from. In 
this case, the applicant waited more than 34 years after 
retirement before he petitioned the AFBCMR. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request for 
all of the requested occupational badges and the aeronautical 
badge. The applicant did not provide proof that he completed the 
proper pre-requisites for wear of the occupational badge nor did 
he provide sufficient evidence to substantiate he was awarded the 
aeronautical badge. 

 

The applicant held AFSC 6450 Inventory Management for his entire 
career, but states he did not perform missions or duties 
consistent with his primary AFSC. He indicates his duties were 
of a classified nature and were not entered into his military 
personnel records because of security reasons. Although that may 
be the case, in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2903, Dress and 
Personnel Appearance of Air Force Personnel, the basic USAF 
occupational badges can be worn after completing technical 
school, the senior badge after award of the 7-skill level and the 
master badge as a master sergeant or above with five years in the 
AFSC subsequent to award of the 7-skill level. The applicant did 
not officially hold the Finance and Acquisition AFSC or the 
Command and Control AFSC. He also did not supply sufficient 
documentation needed to show he met the criteria authorizing him 
the badges. 

 

Regarding the applicant’s request for the USAF observer badge, it 
is now known as the aircrew badge. IAW AFI 11-402, Aviation and 
Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Badges, the Air 
Force authorizes the award and wear of the basic aviation badge 
to members who complete applicable USAF flying training 
requirements. The applicant did not provide any aeronautical 
orders or sufficient evidence to authorize him wear of the badge. 

 

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The AFPC/DPSOE advisory opinion indicates that he did not file 
for correction of his records in a timely manner. However, he 
did not discover the errors until after he was denied service-
connected benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). 
With respect to the time delay in requesting that he be promoted, 
members of the Armed Forces do not approach their superiors to 
inquire about or discuss their promotion prospects. Most service 
members focus on performing their duties and leave evaluation of 


their performance to their superiors and let the official system 
that decides promotion work. The nature of his duties was such 
that he was concerned with performing the mission which was an 
oversight and that negatively affected his promotion 
opportunities. 

 

His military personnel record is absent of evidence of his 
service in Vietnam because he was assigned to Government agencies 
outside of the Air Force and the documents are classified. 
Research conducted by numerous agencies failed to show any 
evidence of his service in Vietnam. 

 

His DD Form 214 and Form 7 contain several pieces of information 
that most people overlook. Item 25 of his DD Form 214 reflects 
that he has a Defense Attaché Systems Personnel Number D45-2963, 
APO San Francisco, California. Additionally, there is mention of 
him working with an Army Aviation Company when he was assigned to 
Osan Air Base. There is also mention that he was involved in 
interservice coordination and interagency agreements. These two 
terms mean that any information on his activities in Korea, 
including his Foreign assignments, could be exempt from the 
FOIA/PA release list. These two documents contain more evidence 
of his involvement with classified missions. 

 

He understands the AFBCMR requires tangible evidence in the form 
of documentation. Apparently, this documentation is only 
considered to be relevant on the condition that it was generated 
and controlled by the Air Force. Documentation from other 
agencies was submitted to the Board for consideration. 

 

The opinions rendered by the examiners were based on limited 
information. The sensitive information that could have benefited 
his request could not be accessed by examiners due to them not 
having a sufficiently high security clearance. His case raises 
issues as to whether the AFBCMR can properly consider requests 
similar to his where Air Force personnel perform special 
assignment and their records and activities are maintained by 
Government agencies separate from the Air Force. 

 

He had to overcome many obstacles related to his DVA claim for 
service-connected disability benefits and must now do the same 
with the Air Force. He served on active duty for 20 years, 
engaged in combat, was inserted into clandestine missions 
directed by parallel agencies, and denied awards to keep the 
military operations secret. 

 

His health has diminished and now, over 40 years later, the DVA 
requires him to furnish documentation that is classified secret. 
He requests the AFBCMR grant the requested relief based on its 
broad equitable powers. 

 

The Air Force granted him Combat Related Special Compensation at 
a rate of 80 percent disabled. If the Air Force acknowledges 
that he was involved in combat, then it should not be able to 


deny him promotion in rank and claim there is no evidence 
warranting promotion. His request raises extraordinary 
circumstances and the Board is urged to consider granting him 
equitable relief. 

 

He understands the question as to why he did not submit any claim 
to the DVA for benefits sooner after he retired from active duty. 
However, documentation that he needed to support his claims could 
not be validated until decades later because key documents were 
classified and not releasable. Prior to his separation he was 
debriefed and there was no mention of how to deal with classified 
missions and how to deal with claiming benefits from the DVA. 

 

He was diagnosed with Type II diabetes in 1979 and did not apply 
for DVA benefits because he could not prove that he served in 
areas where Agent Orange was used. 

 

He is certain the AFBCMR can make a decision through access to 
more complete documentation. The advisory opinions offered to 
the Board by examiners of his military personnel records are 
based upon the truth, but not the whole truth. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his 
response to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and 
adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We 
note the applicant’s argument that he is unable to obtain the 
documentation required to support his request as it is classified 
and therefore unavailable. While he believes the Board should 
request such documentation from the various agencies, or simply 
grant his requests outright based on the Board’s “broad equitable 
powers,” the applicant is reminded that the Board is not an 
investigative body and that the burden of proof of an error or 
injustice rests with each individual applicant. However, we note 
that AFPC/DPSOY has verified the applicant’s entitlement to the 
Korean Defense Service Medal, the Non-Commissioned Officer 
Professional Education Graduate Ribbon, and the Air Force 


Outstanding Unit Award with three oak leaf clusters; his military 
personnel records will be corrected administratively. Therefore, 
absent evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend 
relief be granted beyond that rendered administratively. 

 

4. 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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-02572 in Executive Session on 10 Jan 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered. 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 21 Jun 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AF/IM/AFDO, dated 30 Sep 10 w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 4 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 29 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair