Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03270
Original file (BC-2012-03270.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03270 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be awarded any decorations or campaign ribbons for his combat 
service in Vietnam. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He is a combat veteran and while assigned in Okinawa he flew 
missions into Vietnam, in direct support of operations there, 
from Oct 61 to Mar 63. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force, on 14 Mar 61, 
for a period of four years. His AF Form 7, Airman Military 
Record, indicates the applicant was stationed in Naha Air Base, 
Okinawa, from Oct 61 to May 63. 

 

He was honorably released from active duty, on 23 Mar 65, with a 
reason for separation of expiration term of service. He was 
credited with four years of active duty service, including two 
years, eight months and five days of foreign service. 

 

The applicant’s record will be administratively corrected to 
reflect award of the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA), 
the Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA), and the National 
Defense Service Medal (NDSM). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that after a 
thorough review of the applicant's official military personnel 
record and review by the Air Force Personnel Center, Directorate 


of Assignments, the applicant failed to substantiate he served 
any time in Vietnam; therefore, he does not meet the criteria 
for these awards. 

 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 26 Nov 12 for review and response. 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 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 relief beyond 
that already granted administratively is not warranted. In view 
of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find no basis to recommend granting further relief in this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-03270 in Executive Session on 9 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 3 Nov 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Nov 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 03179

    Original file (BC 2014 03179.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03179 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) in lieu of the Armed Forces Expedition Medal (AFEM). Once the VSM was established, provisions were provided to authorize service members who received the AFEM for service in Vietnam to exchange the award for the VSM. The National Defense Service Medal should have been...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01393

    Original file (BC 2014 01393.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no official documentation in the applicant’s records to verify he was in the area of eligibility for an aggregate of 6 months for award of the VCM. In additional, the Air Force Personnel Center, Directorate of Assignments verified the applicant as having served at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, but they were unable to confirm any foreign-service in Vietnam; therefore, rendering him ineligible for award of the VCM. To be eligible, a service member must be: permanently assigned,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00578

    Original file (BC-2012-00578.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    While the applicant’s service in Vietnam does not meet the requirement for documentation on the DD Form 214, the Board has found it in the interest of justice to provide similarly situated applicants a “boots-on-the-ground” letter, and therefore recommends the record be corrected as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00548

    Original file (BC 2013 00548.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the VCM. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2013-00548 in Executive Session on 29 Oct 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jan...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 04176 2

    Original file (BC 2010 04176 2.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In the original case, the applicant contended he served on temporary duty (TDY) in Vietnam and Okinawa, Japan, and submitted a sworn statement from an alleged eyewitness who served with him in Vietnam in support of his request. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F. On 20 Feb 14, AFPC/DPAPP directed the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect 4 months and 13 days of foreign-service credit for his service in Germany during the period 3 Oct 63 through 15 Feb 64. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04872

    Original file (BC-2012-04872.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There was no evidence located in the applicant’s submission or his official military personnel record to support he served in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos or Thailand for 30 consecutive or 60 nonconsecutive days. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID 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 11 Jan 13, for review and comment within 30...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02565

    Original file (BC-2012-02565.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02565 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Combat Action Medal (AFCAM). AFPC/DPSID was able to verify the applicant’s entitlement to three Bronze Service Stars (3/BSS) to his previously awarded Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) for his service during the period 24 May 63...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01739

    Original file (BC-2005-01739.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AFOSR-S and the AFOSR-L were authorized on 12 Oct 80, and awarded to Air Force active duty, Reserve, and National Guard personnel who have been awarded credit for an OS tour after 1 Sep 80. In this regard, the AFOSR-S and the AFOSR-L were authorized on 12 Oct 80 for those members who had been credited with an OS tour after 1 Sep 80. The applicant did not complete an OS tour after that date.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03209

    Original file (BC-2012-03209.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Service members, who earned the Armed Forces Expeditionary medal for service in Vietnam between 1 Jul 58 and 3 Jul 65, may elect to receive the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) instead of the AFEM. After a thorough review of the evidence presented and the service member’s military personnel records, we believe a reasonable basis exists to conclude the applicant served in Vietnam. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military...