ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01298

      					COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM).

He be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should be entitled to the VSM for flying out of Thailand in 
1975.  

In support of his requests, the applicant provides a two-page 
typed statement.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation 
from Active Duty, on 6 Apr 73, he entered the Regular Air Force.

On 5 Apr 77, the applicant was released from active duty and 
transferred to the Air Force Reserves and was credited with four 
years of total active service.

In a letter dated 4 Jan 80, the applicant was notified that he 
did not serve in Vietnam during the inclusive period (1 Mar 
61 to 28 Mar 73) to receive the Vietnam era awards.

On 20 Mar 92, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s 
request for award of the DFC. 

On 20 Feb 13, the applicant requested reconsideration of his 
request for award of the DFC.  On 17 Jun 13, the applicant’s 
request was denied by the Board because it did not meet the 
criteria for reconsideration.  Additionally, the Board notified 
the applicant that his request for award of the VSM was a new 
request and required a new DD Form 149, Application for 
Correction of Military Records.
	
On 16 Sep 13, the applicant submitted another request for 
reconsideration for award of the DFC and the VSM.  On 9 Dec 14, 
the Board denied the applicant’s request for the DFC because it 
did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.  The Board again 
notified the applicant that his request for award of the VSM was 
a new issue not previously considered by the Board and required 
a new DD Form 149.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the 
DFC indicating the applicant has not provided any new relevant 
documentation as previously requested.  There is no official 
documentation in the applicant's record verifying he was 
recommended for or awarded the DFC.  The applicant's current 
request for reconsideration for award of the DFC does not 
contain new relevant evidence.  Previous guidance has been given 
to the applicant as to the processes and documentation needed to 
reasonably consider his request.  To date, the applicant has not 
provided the documentation to support the award or justify an 
error or injustice exists.

The DFC may be awarded to any persons who, after 6 Apr 17, while 
serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, 
distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement 
while participating in aerial flight.  The performance of the 
act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and 
beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary achievement must 
have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and 
outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from comrades 
or from other persons in similar circumstances.  Awards will be 
made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary 
achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained 
operational activities against an armed enemy.

After a thorough review of the applicant's official military 
personnel record, DPSID was able to verify award of the VSM with 
one Bronze Service Star (VSM w/1BSS).  According to official 
documentation, the applicant directly supported Vietnam, 
Operation FREQUENT WIND, from 4 Apr 75 to 15 May 75 for which he 
is eligible for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM).  In 
accordance with Public Law (PL) 1007-314, dated 2 Dec 02, 
service members who are awarded the AFEM for direct support of 
Operation FREQUENT WIND can, upon request, exchange the AFEM for 
award of the VSM.  DPSID will automatically award the VSM w/1BSS 
in lieu of the AFEM so that the applicant does not have to 
submit a separate request for the exchange.  The applicant's 
previous requests for the VSM were denied as the authorization 
to exchange the AFEM for Operation FREQUENT WIND for the VSM was 
not in place until 2002.  The AFEM as currently annotated on the 
applicant's Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 215) will remain as the 
applicant is eligible for the AFEM for his service in direct 
support of the Mayaguez Operation.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFHRA/RS recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the 
DFC indicating the applicant has not provided sufficient 
documentation.

The complete AFHRA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the 
DFC indicating they concur with the recommendations of DPSID and 
AFHRA that the applicant has not submitted any new relevant 
documentation as previously requested, such as a reconstructed 
recommendation, eyewitness statements or verification that an 
award for the DFC was placed in official channels, or any 
evidence that an error or injustice exists.

The complete MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 3 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  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 injustice to warrant 
correcting the applicant’s records to show entitlement to the 
DFC.  We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and 
considered the weight and relevance of the additional 
documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it 
was discoverable at the time of any previous application.  
However, since no new and relevant evidence has been provided, 
we find the request does not meet the criteria for 
reconsideration.  As the applicant has been previously advised, 
reconsideration is provided only where newly discovered relevant 
evidence is presented which was not available when the 
application was submitted.  Further, the reiteration of facts we 
have previously addressed, uncorroborated personal observations, 
or additional arguments on the evidence of record are not 
adequate grounds for reopening a case.  Therefore, aside from 
the administrative corrections noted above, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the additional relief sought in this 
application.
______________________________________________________________


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the additional evidence presented 
did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board; 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-2014-01298 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                     , Panel Chair
	                  , Member
	                    , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 12 Jun 14, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFHRA/RS, dated 8 May 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 21 May 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 15.