MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             15 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000037123

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, correction of records to show that he was awarded the Air Medal with “V” Device and the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his former commander solicited for volunteers to assist in rescuing a helicopter pilot and its crew chief.  He also states that the area of rescue was hot and that other helicopters were under heavy fire.  He further states that any volunteers assisting in the rescue would be recommended for an Air Medal with “V” Device and the Bronze Star with “V” Device. He goes on to state that he was one of the volunteers who received the awards; however, orders were never officially published and that the company clerk failed to take the necessary action to process the awards during his service in Vietnam.  In support of his application he submits a copies of his DD Forms 214 and a personal statement. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he entered active duty on 17 October 1967 and continued to serve until he was placed on the Army of the United States Retired List effective 31 October 1987.  He served in Vietnam from 7 June 1968 to 3 June 1969 and from 10 December 1970 to
4 December 1971.

The applicant’s records contain two DD Forms 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty and Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with separation dates of 7 March 1977 and 31 October 1987, respectively.

The two available DD Forms 214, which were authenticated in the applicant’s own hand, do not show the Air Medal with “V” Device or the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device.

There is no evidence in the applicant’s personnel records, which shows that the applicant was recommended for or awarded the Air Medal with “V” Device or the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Air Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service while participating in aerial flight.  This award is primarily intended for personnel on flying status, but may also be awarded to those personnel whose combat duties require them to fly, for example personnel in the attack elements of units involved in air-land assaults against an armed enemy.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

U.S Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided, in pertinent part, guidelines for award of the Air Medal.  It established that passenger personnel who did not participate in an air assault were not eligible for the award based upon sustained operations.  It defined terms and provided guidelines for the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours.  Twenty five Category I missions (air assault and equally dangerous missions) and accrual of a minimum of 25 hours of flight time while engaged in Category I missions was the standard established for which sustained operations were deemed worthy of recognition by an award of the Air Medal.  However, the regulation was clear that these guidelines were considered only a departure point.  Nothing created an entitlement to the award.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or
service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.
Recommendation must be made with 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made with 3 years.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides in pertinent part, that the bronze “V” device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he received the Air Medal with “V” Device and Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device for heroism for saving the life of a helicopter pilot and his chief while serving in Vietnam.  However, there is no evidence available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows he was recommended for or awarded the Air Medal with “V” Device or the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device for such an action.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his records to show the Air Medal with “V” Device or the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

TDH____  AAO_____  GJW___  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037123	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000815	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19871031	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1  64.		
2.  60		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.