Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03687
Original file (BC-2010-03687.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
 

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03687 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be entitled to award of the Vietnam Service Medal, with 
two Bronze Service Stars (VSM, w/2BSS). 

 

2. He be credited for service in the Republic of Vietnam. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

While he was assigned at Clark Air Base (AB), he went on 
temporary duty (TDY) status to Ton Son Nhut. He received four 
months of combat pay; however, his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of 
the Unite States Report of Transfer or Discharge does not 
reflect this service. 

 

He should receive two campaign stars for his support of the Tet 
Counteroffensive (30 Jan – 1 Apr 68) and the Vietnamese 
Counteroffensive (2 Apr – 30 Jun 68). 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 16 Feb 65, 
for a period of four years. He was progressively promoted to 
the grade of sergeant (Sgt/E-4) with a Date of Rank (DOR) 
1 Feb 68. 

 

He was honorably released from active duty, on 11 Dec 68. He 
was credited with 3 years, 9 months, and 26 days of active duty 
service, including 1 year, 4 months, and 11 days of foreign 
service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of boots on ground in Vietnam, 
stating, in part, that the applicant’s master personnel records 
and the documentation submitted failed to provide any evidence 
that substantiates foreign service time in Vietnam. 

 

They were able to confirm boots on ground foreign service at 
Clark AB, Republic of Philippines, from 30 Jul 67 to 10 Dec 68. 
In addition, the applicant’s AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, 
reflects a TDY to Southeast Asia (SEA) from 29 Feb 68 to 
1 May 68, but fails to indicate a specific location in SEA. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial of the VSM, w/2BSS, stating, in 
part, the Directorate of Assignments could not verify the 
applicant served in Vietnam. Additionally, the Directorate of 
Assignment was unable to verify the specific location the 
applicant served while TDY to SEA. 

 

In addition, they note the VSM is awarded to all service members 
of the Armed Forces who between 4 Jul 65 and 28 Mar 73, served 
in the following areas of SEA: in Vietnam and the contiguous 
waters and the airspace; in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia or the 
airspace thereof and in the direct support of military 
operations in Vietnam. One BSS is awarded for each recognized 
military campaign period in which the member served. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterated his original contentions that he went 
TDY to Vietnam. He received combat pay, separate rations, and 
another allowance, plus a tax break, which should be a part of 
his pay records. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting 
corrective action. We note the comments of the Air Force 


offices of primary responsibility; nonetheless, after a review 
of the applicant’s military record, it appears the applicant was 
on temporary duty to SEA. In addition, Air Force records 
validate the applicant’s home base was involved in direct 
support of operations in SEA, specifically, in Laos, Thailand, 
and/or in Vietnam during the time he was assigned. While it is 
not conclusive that the applicant served in the Republic of 
Vietnam, we find the submitted evidence to be credible and 
consistent with his statements and record of service in SEA. As 
such, we find the evidence sufficient to resolve any doubt in 
this matter in the applicant’s favor. In view of the above, we 
recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect award 
of the Vietnam Service Medal. 

 

2. Notwithstanding the above, we could not verify the 
applicant’s eligibility for boots on ground in Vietnam or the 
VSM, w/2BSS. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable 
consideration of this portion of his application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his 
DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge, issued 11 December 1968, Item 24, Decorations, Medal, Badges, Commendations, Citations and 
Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized be amended to reflect 
award of the Vietnam Service Medal. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-03687 in Executive Session on 22 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 13 Dec 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 11 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00026

    Original file (BC-2011-00026.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFPC/DPAPP verified the applicant served at Kadena Air Base (AB), Japan, from 20 Sep 67 to 22 Mar 68, for a total of six months and four days. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The documentation provided to date clearly shows flight time during both TDYs, in 67-68 and 68-69. Someone must know KC-135 crew chiefs flew with their aircraft on most missions at that time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01247

    Original file (BC-2011-01247.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served in Thailand and Vietnam; however, his orders and record copies reflecting his service from 1966 through 1977 are missing. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Transfer or Discharge, issued in conjunction with his 28 Aug 70 discharge; an extract of an airman performance report (APR); a statement from a former...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02676

    Original file (BC-2011-02676.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, and eight copies of his AF Forms 626, Temporary Duty Order – Military, with dates ranging from April 1966 through June 1967. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of the request to show Vietnam service, and states, in part, they were able to verify and confirm the applicant’s foreign service at Clark Air Base, Republic of the Philippines,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02942

    Original file (BC-2012-02942.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-00373

    Original file (BC-2011-00373.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00373 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). However, the applicant’s records fail to provide documentation that clearly substantiates service in Thailand. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00231

    Original file (BC-2011-00231.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00231 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) for his service in Taiwan. The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02674

    Original file (BC-2011-02674.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP cannot verify the applicant was TDY to Vietnam, nor verify that the author of the supporting statement provided with his submission was assigned with him at Clark AFB or in Vietnam. We note the comments of the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00316

    Original file (BC-2011-00316.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served on active duty in the Air Force from 28 Jun 68 to 8 Apr 72. On 19 Apr 11, AFPC/DPAPP sent a letter to the applicant requesting documentation such as travel vouchers, evaluation reports, letters of evaluation, decorations, or other official military document that reflects that travel was completed and the inclusive periods of the travel; however he has not responded to this request. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00951

    Original file (BC 2014 00951.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03251

    Original file (BC-2011-03251.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect his TDY to Vietnam. We note the applicant’s records have been administratively corrected to reflect his foreign service in Thailand. In this regard, we took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or...