Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00058
Original file (BC-2012-00058.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00058 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
       
 
       
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His records be corrected to reflect his service in Korea. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He served with the 95th Fighter Inceptor Squadron (FIS) from 1969 
to 1970 at Osan Air Base (AB), Korea. 
 
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant’s  DD  Form  214,  Armed  Forces  of  the  United  States 
Report  of  Transfer  or  Discharge,  reflects  he  contracted  his 
enlistment in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 23 Mar 66. 
 
The  applicant’s  AF  Form  7,  Airman  Military  Record  reflects  he 
served  with  the  95th  FIS  at  Dover  AFB,  DE  from  18  Jul  67  to 
23 Jan 70.    His  AF  Form  7  does  not  reflect  any  foreign  service 
assignments. 
 
The  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  on  23  Jan  70,  and  was 
credited  with  3  years,  10  months,  and  1  day  of  active  service, 
none of which was credited as foreign service. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPAPP  recommends  denial  noting  that  neither  the 
applicant’s  submission,  nor  his  military  records  contain  any 
information reflecting he served in Korea.  
 
The complete AFPC/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 26 Mar 12, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 an injustice.  We took 
notice  of  the  applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and  the 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he 
has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in 
the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
 
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  issue(s)  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-2012-00058  in  Executive  Session  on  12  Jul  12,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 

  Panel Chair 
  Member 
  Member 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 12. 
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Military Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPP, dated 19 Mar 12. 
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 12. 

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2012-00058 was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  
Panel Chair  

 
 

   
   

 
 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00665

    Original file (BC-2011-00665.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00665 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. AFPC has verified the applicant’s entitlement to the Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM) for his service with the 303rd MMS, Kunsan AB, Korea, as well as entitlement to the Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA) for his honorable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00337

    Original file (BC-2012-00337.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His records do not reflect his Vietnam service. 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 injustice. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04896

    Original file (BC 2013 04896.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s AF Form 11, Officer Military Record, reflects foreign service from 28 Jan 68 to 1 July 68 for 155 days. While the applicant has not provided conclusive evidence of the exact length of time he was in Korea, it is our opinion that the available evidence appears to weigh more in favor of amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 to reflect his foreign service as requested. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00163

    Original file (BC-2010-00163.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, does not reflect the appropriate awards and foreign service time. Only members of the armed forces of the United States who meet the criteria established for the AFEM (Vietnam) or Vietnam Service Medal during the period of service required are considered to have contributed direct combat support to the RVN armed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00605

    Original file (BC-2009-00605.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    HQ AFPC/DPAPP was not able to confirm the applicant served in Vietnam; therefore, the applicant is ineligible for Vietnam service awards. 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 injustice. We note the applicant’s DD Form 214 will be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05218

    Original file (BC 2012 05218.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP states that the Board should review the applicant’s records to see if Foreign Service other than what they were able to verify can be determined. The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that his AF Form 7, Airman Military Record reflects he was TDY from 28...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03067

    Original file (BC-2011-03067.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His military service record be corrected to reflect the time he served in Vietnam. The DVA stated the evidence of record showed he served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era, therefore, exposure to herbicides is conceded. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of his request for service in Vietnam.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00338

    Original file (BC-2007-00338.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00338 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 AUGUST 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect credit for a TDY to Vietnam in 1968. In support of his request, applicant provided page four of his Airman Military Record, AF Form 7, which is a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02634

    Original file (BC-2005-02634.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    --The Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVNCM) is awarded to members who: (1) served for six months in South Vietnam during the period 1 Mar 61 and 28 Mar 73; (2) served outside the geographical limits of South Vietnam and contributed direct combat support to the RVN Armed Forces for an aggregate of six months--only members who meet the criteria established for the AFEM (Vietnam) or the VSM during the period required are considered to have contributed direct combat support to the RVN Armed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03214

    Original file (BC-2012-03214.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03214 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect his Foreign Service in Korea from 30 January through 30 June 1968. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe a preponderance of the evidence supports...