RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 				DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05816

							COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His official personnel records [referred to as “St Louis Records” 
by the applicant] and DD Form 214, Report of Separation from 
Active Duty, be corrected to address the following errors:

1. Credit for foreign Service time in Vietnam should be two (2) 
months and three (3) days.

2. Change Box 19 (Indochina or Korea service since 5 Aug 64), from 
“no,” to “yes.”

3. Change completion date of course 3ABR27630 to 21 Feb 75 
(Administratively Resolved).

Additionally, he requests removal of his nonjudicial punishment 
(NJP) under Article 15 he received in October 1978.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He completed basic training on 15 Jan 75, and then completed 
technical training for radar/special operations on 21 Feb 75.  He 
then served in Vietnam from 25 Feb 75 to 1 May 75.  While attached 
to a South Vietnamese radar site as an advisor/special weapons 
controller, he was qualified as an expert marksman with both a 
handgun and rifle.  He was wounded on/about 15 Apr 75 and was 
operated on by South Vietnamese surgeons to remove the bullet.  He 
contends they [South Vietnamese] awarded him the PH Medal and SS 
for helping keep their radar station functional while under 
attack.  He later received medical treatment at Madigan Army 
Medical Center on 17 Apr 75.  He was then transferred aboard the 
USS Enterprise to provide radar coverage for the 7th fleet.  He 
now has extensive medical issues as a result of his shoulder 
injury from the bullet wound he received in Vietnam.

He requests removal of his NJP received for stealing a battery for 
a government vehicle because he had previously received permission 
to borrow the battery; therefore it was never stolen.  He never 
participated in a hearing, nor was he able to make statements on 
his own behalf.
He contends information on his DD Form 214 has been changed 
without his consent.  He states he was offered a reenlistment 
bonus of $15,000 but it was increased to $20,000, as documented on 
his DD Form 214.

He served in the military during the worst time in history.  Most 
of his duties in Vietnam were too highly classified to discuss.  
As a veteran, he wants the record set straight and to have all 
these errors corrected.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 5 Dec 74, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, Airman Performance 
Report (APR), his location of assignment at the end of the 
reporting period of 5 Dec 74 to 5 Dec 75 was McChord AFB, WA.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, his location of 
assignment at the end of the reporting period of 6 Dec 75 to 
1 Sep 76 was McChord AFB, WA.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, his location of 
assignment at the end of the reporting period of 2 Sep 76 to 
7 Jul 77 was Cliff, NM.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 909, his location of 
assignment at the end of the reporting period of 8 Jul 77 to 
7 Jul 78, was Silver City, NM.

On 10 Oct 78, the applicant received NJP under Article 15 for 
wrongfully appropriating government property.  The applicant 
accepted the NJP, desired to make an oral presentation but did not 
desire to make a written presentation.

On 11 Oct 78, the applicant’s commander directed a suspended 
reduction in grade and the forfeiture of pay for two months.

On 23 Oct 78, the applicant acknowledged the NJP without appeal.

On 4 Dec 78, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, 
and was credited with four years of active service, which includes 
no foreign service time.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice with regards to the applicant’s request 
to remove his Article 15 from his record.  On or about 23 Sep 78, 
the applicant allegedly wrongfully appropriated an automotive 
battery, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ.  For the alleged 
wrongdoing, his commander offered him NJP on 10 Oct 78.  The AF 
Form 3070A, Notification of Intent to Impose Nonjudicial 
Punishment, indicated the applicant consulted a lawyer and 
accepted NJP proceedings.  He indicated he wanted to make an oral 
presentation and did not desire to make a written presentation.  
On 11 Oct 78, the applicant's commander found that he committed 
the offense and punished him by reducing him to the grade of 
airman first class (suspended until 1 Apr 79) and ordered him to 
forfeit $50.00 per month for two months.  The applicant did not 
appeal.  The applicant now claims that he used the automotive 
battery with the permission of the base commander.  He also claims 
that he was not granted the opportunity to make an oral 
presentation before the commander as he had requested.  The 
arguments the applicant advances could have been made near the 
time of the action; at this point, we cannot check with the 
appropriate personnel to determine why the applicant may not have 
been granted a personal appearance or if the base commander gave 
the applicant permission to use the battery.  Moreover, the 
applicant has the burden of proof in this case and in our opinion, 
he has not supported his claims with sufficient evidence.

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIT has identified an error with regards to the applicant’s 
completion date of the Aerospace Control and Warning Systems 
Operator Course, and will correct his record administratively.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice with regards to the applicant’s foreign 
service time.  A review of his Master Personnel Records, and 
documentation submitted, failed to provide any documents that 
substantiate foreign service time in Vietnam.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  Based on the applicant’s contentions, it 
was interpreted he was requesting award of the Silver Star (SS), 
Purple Heart (PH) Medal, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship 
Ribbon with Bronze Star (SAEMR w/BS), and awards for 
Vietnam service, as they are not documented in his record and 
could have been awarded by the Board.

With regards to the SS, there was no documentation in the 
applicant's record, such as the Special Order or recommendation 
for award of the SS, nor was any provided with this request to 
verify the applicant was recommended for or awarded the SS.  There 
is no evidence in the applicant's record, nor was any provided, to 
support award or justify an error or injustice exists.  In order 
to reasonably consider the applicant's request, he will need to 
submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of 
the act/achievement preferably from someone within his chain of 
command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, 
and eyewitness statements.

With regards to the PH Medal, we were unable to locate a signed 
certificate, Special Order or any other official documentation, 
nor were any provided with this request, verifying the applicant 
was recommended for or awarded the PH Medal.  In addition, there 
is no medical documentation reflecting the applicant had an enemy 
related injury that required medical attention.  Although the 
applicant provided medical documentation, the medical evidence 
accounts the events as relayed by the applicant only, there are no 
eyewitness statement to corroborate the applicant's version of 
events.  Further, the applicant's request was not submitted to the 
Purple Heart Review Board as it lacks the medical documentation 
indicating that the applicant was injured due to enemy action, and 
eyewitness statements.

With regards to the SAEMR w/BS, no documentation verifying the 
applicant qualified as "expert" with both the M-16 rifle and 
standard issue handgun was located in the applicant’s Master 
Personnel Records, rendering him ineligible for award of the 
AFSMER w/BS.

With regards to the VSM, there was no official documentation in 
the applicant's record, nor was any provided, to verify he was 
attached or assigned to a unit for one or more days or served on 
temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 non-consecutive days 
in the area of eligibility, nor was he permanently assigned, 
attached, or detailed for one or more days with an organization 
participating in or directly supporting ground operations; or 
actually participated as a crew member in one or more aerial 
flights directly supporting military operations; rendering him 
ineligible for award of the VSM.

With regards to the VCM, there was no official documentation in 
the applicant's record, nor was any provided with his request, to 
verify the applicant served for an aggregate of six months in the 
area of responsibility.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit F.
?
AFHRA/RS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice with regards to the implied request for the 
SS or PH Medal.  Specifically, the applicant sites actions 
on/around 15 Apr 75, at a South Vietnamese radar site, render him 
eligible for the SS and PH Medal.  A review of the documents 
supplied by the applicant, as well as the official personnel and 
medical file supplied by the National Personnel Records Center 
uncovered numerous inconsistencies with the his contentions.  
First, there is no documentation the applicant ever served in 
Vietnam.  It is highly unlikely a 3-skill level airman would be 
sent directly to South Vietnam, within days of graduating 
technical training, in an advisory capacity.  His performance 
reports encompassing April 1975 do not note any deployment or 
service in Vietnam - only that he was progressing satisfactorily 
towards his 5-skill level.  Second, there is no indication he was 
ever shot in the right shoulder, as indicated by in a Department 
of the Army Form 3349, dated 10 Jun 75, provided by the veteran.  
All of the applicant’s medical records omit this incident, but 
instead, refer to right shoulder injuries attributed to motorcycle 
accident in June 1976.  Third, there is no evidence the applicant 
was ever assigned to, or received medical treatment aboard, the 
USS Enterprise.  However, the applicant did receive twelve 
stitches to his nose and five stiches to his eye in August 1975, 
by a Doctor D. Peterson at Madigan Army Medical Center, although 
the cause for the injury is not noted (but after the time period 
claimed).  The same doctor sees him again in August and September 
1976; however, his signature goes from a juvenile scrawl depicted 
on the 10 Jun 75 form to a flowing adult signature in the 1976 
forms that he signs.  Since this 10 Jun 75 form is not found in 
the veteran's medical records, its veracity is suspect.  With the 
multiple conflicts between the official records and the veteran's 
claim, combined with the lack of verifiable medical documentation, 
it is not recommended the applicant be awarded the SS or PH Medal.

A complete copy of the AFHRA/RS evaluation is at Exhibit G.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  After a review of the applicant’s official 
military records, and complete submission, there is no evidence to 
support the applicant served in Vietnam, or that he was wounded by 
the enemy.  Further, there is no evidence he was nominated for the 
SS, PH Medal, SAEMR w/BS, or any medals for Vietnam service.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit H.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant clarifies his request to 1) Remove the Article 15 
regarding the car battery incident and 2) his DD Form 214 to 
reflect service in Vietnam.  He did not request the award of any 
medals.  Additionally, due to his declining medical condition, he 
believes he should have been medically discharged.  He requests 
the Board advise him of the procedures.

Further, he takes exception to the way the advisory opinions 
portray his character and now volunteers to testify in front of 
the Board to provide a verbal account of his contentions and to 
answer any question in support of his claims.  He inquires why 
multiple pieces of his military record he contends are missing, 
such as travel orders, medical records, and training records.

With much of his official record missing or incomplete, he is left 
with only his sworn testimony regarding the validity of his 
contentions.  As many of his operations in Vietnam are classified, 
he cannot go into much detail on many accounts.

He submits another account of the day he was wounded in action and 
states VA, Air Force, and Army medical records provide evidence of 
his injuries.  Specifically, he notes the 10 Jun 75 medical report 
is not the applicant’s account to the doctor, rather the doctor’s 
verification of previous medical treatment.  He provides many 
similar documents as seen in his original application.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the 
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.  
Applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error 
or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States 
Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Applicant 
has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we 
are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or 
injustice which require resolution on the merits.  Thus, we cannot 
conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the 
applicant’s failure to file in a timely manner.

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 application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  With the exception 
of the administrative corrections identified, it is the decision 
of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

Further, corrections to items within the applicant’s record, as 
indicated in the applicant’s rebuttal, should be submitted with a 
new DD 149, Application for Correction of Military Record. 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2013-05816 in Executive Session on 9 Jun 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 15 Apr 14.
      Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 16 Apr 14.
      Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 12 May 14.
      Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Jul 14.
      Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFHRA/RS, dated 20 Apr 15.
      Exhibit H.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, undated.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 15.
      Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 May 15.