RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04426
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be
corrected to reflect the missions he flew over the Republic of
Vietnam during the period Feb 72 to Sep 72.
2. He receive a copy of his Air Medal citation.
3. His records be corrected to reflect his Foreign Service in
Vietnam.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. He flew from Kadena Air Force Base (AFB), Japan; Anderson
AFB, Guam; and Clark AFB, Philippines on Vietnam missions.
2. His DD Form 214 does not reflect any missions over Vietnam;
therefore, he has been denied benefits for exposure to Agent
Orange by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).
3. The DVA needs documentation to verify his service in
Vietnam.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
DD Forms 214; DD Form 1351-2, Travel Voucher or Subvoucher
(Continuation Sheet); AF Form 11, Officer Military Record; and
memorandums.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served on active duty from 18 Nov 69 to
15 May 75 and is credited with 7 months and 10 days of Foreign
Service.
On 11 Jan 12, AFPC/DPSOY notified the applicant they were unable
to correct his DD Form 214. Per Air Force Instruction and
Department of Defense regulations, a DD Form 214, will not be
reissued or amended showing specific locations served, including
flying missions.
On 4 Apr 11, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC)
informed the applicant that they did not find a copy of the AM
citation in his personnel file.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAPP makes no recommendation. DPAPP states a review of
the applicants master personnel records and documentation
provided failed to substantiate Foreign Service time in Vietnam.
Although, the applicant has several performance reports in his
records that indicate numerous combat missions in Southeast
Asia, nothing specifically states Vietnam.
DPAPP states they believe these missions were over or in
Vietnam, but the applicants records do not clearly indicate
Vietnam service.
The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 13 Jan 12 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was 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 error or injustice. In this
respect, we note the applicant has already been advised that IAW
DoD regulations, the DD Form 214 will not be reissued or amended
to reflect specific locations served, including flying missions.
Regarding his request for a copy of his Air Medal citation, we
note the applicant was also advised that the citation was not in
his personnel file. Moreover, this Board is not the custodian
of his records, as such, this request is not within our purview.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to recommend granting this portion of his request.
4. Nothwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or
injustice regarding the applicants request to reflect his
service in Vietnam. According to his AF Forms 77, Company Grade
Officer Effectiveness Report, the applicant performed duty in
direct support of the Southeast Asian Conflict from 20 Jul 72 to
21 Sep 72. While we cannot determine the exact location, we
find the evidence presented sufficient to conclude the applicant
had boots on ground in Vietnam from 20 Jul 72 to 21 Sep 72. As
such, we recommend the applicants 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 he had boots on
the ground in the Republic of Vietnam.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number
BC-2011-04426 in Executive Session on 31 May 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 October 2011, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 6 Dec 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 January 2012.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00026
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-01746
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01746 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge be corrected to reflect entitlement to the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). The applicant served in units during their award periods for the RVNGC w/P, which would imply...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01571
The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In 1968, he went TDY to Kadena AFB, Japan for six months. While the applicant requests his DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect service in Thailand; in accordance with Department of Defense directives, the DD Form 214 will not be reissued or amended to reflect specific locations served in an AOR. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01152
We took note of the applicant's complete submission, to include her rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, while it is clear from the documentation provided the deceased former service member served on a variety of temporary duty (TDY) assignments in the Southeast Asia Theater of Operations, we do not find the evidence presented sufficient to conclude his DD Form 214 should be corrected as she requests. After a thorough review of the evidence presented and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03093
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03093 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Vietnam Service be annotated on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: By 23 Dec 68, he had 43 combat missions into Southeast Asia and by the time of his discharge, he had over 100 combat missions. He reiterates the facts as follows: *His service was...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-01166
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01166 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). DPSIDR also states they cannot support his request for award of the AFResM because he did not serve the minimum time necessary to qualify for this award.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2009 01166
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01166 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). DPSIDR also states they cannot support his request for award of the AFResM because he did not serve the minimum time necessary to qualify for this award.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01861
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01861 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, reflect award of the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of flight records, personal flight log records and documents extracted from his military...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01464
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01464 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 NOV 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he flew a mission into the Republic of Vietnam and he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00464
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He flew over Vietnam many times during the Vietnam War as a plane refueler and should have been awarded the requested medals. The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as...