RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03160
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be
corrected to show the following:
1. He served in Thailand (Administratively Corrected).
2. He served in the Philippines (Administratively Corrected).
3. He served in Vietnam.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In Apr 1975, he was on Temporary Duty (TDY) at Ton Son Nhut AB,
Vietnam.
He flew on many missions in and out of Vietnam during the
evacuation. He left on a helicopter from the embassy building
in Saigon on 29 Apr 1975 and was one of the last out of Vietnam.
He discovered the error on his DD Form 214 after retiring from
the police department in 2011. He assumes the error may have
occurred as his assignments were in a TDY status.
In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal
statement, a copy of his DD Form 214, e-mail communique, letter
of support and other various documents associated with his
requests.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 6 Jul 1972, the applicant entered active duty.
On 2 Jul 1976, he was released from active duty.
He served 3 years, 11 months and 27 days on active duty.
On 19 Aug 2013, AFPC/DPAPP advised the applicant they were able
to verify his Boots on the Ground (BOG) service in Thailand and
the Philippines. However, they were unable to verify Vietnam
service and requested he provide documentation to verify his
service in Vietnam (Exhibit C).
In a response to DPAPP dated 3 Sep 2013, the applicant states he
flew on missions in and out of Vietnam on C-141 and KC-
131 aircrafts and that his name may possibly be on the manifests
and provides the name of his commanding officer at the time. He
searched all records at his disposal and has no other
information available nor has any idea on how to go about
finding those documents. His assignment to Vietnam was a TDY
and because it was not a permanent duty station, he fears this
is the reason why it is so difficult to track down. His service
time in Vietnam is very important to him.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DPAPP recommends denial of the applicants request to amend his
records to reflect service in Vietnam. The information provided
by the applicant and a review of his master personnel records
did not contain any information that shows he served in Vietnam.
DPAPP will administratively correct his records to reflect his
service at Clark AB, Philippines, and Takhli AB, Thailand.
The complete DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 29 Oct 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has not received a response (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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. 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 that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, other
than the administrative corrections amending the applicants
records to reflect foreign service at Clark AB, Philippines, and
Takhli AB, Thailand, we find no basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that 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-2013-03160 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documents were considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 19 Aug 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Sep 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 8 Oct 2013.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2013.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03969
_________________ ______________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicants military personnel records indicate that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 Jul 71 and served on active duty until his Honorable discharge on 18 Dec 72. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants master personnel records, are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is included at Exhibit...
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 | CY2013 | BC-2013-03043
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03043 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect his service in Vietnam and Thailand. DPAPP states that a review of the applicants master personnel records failed to provide any documents that substantiate Foreign Service time in Vietnam. In view of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04995
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04995 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT NDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, be amended to reflect his temporary duty (TDY) assignments to Thailand, Guam, (Hawaii, Philippines) - Administratively Corrected, and Okinawa. A review of his records and documentation submitted failed to provide any documents that substantiate...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04051
The applicants DD Form 214 does not reflect service in Vietnam or Thailand. 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The Board notes the Air Force office of primary responsibility confirms the applicant was TDY to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00726
Although he has been unable to provide copies of travel vouchers in support of his request, it is our opinion that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to persuade us that he served in Vietnam. ________________________________________________________________ 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 Da Nang Air Base, Vietnam, from 21 Mar 1972 through 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00536
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He has documentation from a fellow service member who served in Vietnam with him who experienced a similar problem regarding his service in Vietnam, and how his records were corrected by the Air Force. Therefore, we recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04350
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04350 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect his service in Vietnam. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02676
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 applicants foreign service at Clark Air Base, Republic of the Philippines,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01146
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 20 June 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). 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 that the applicant’s records do not reflect he...