MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            11 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038021

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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, that he be awarded the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with Valor (“V’) device for heroism.  In addition, that he be issued the medals and ribbons for the following awards he earned while on active duty that he never received:  the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) with (w) 5 bronze service stars (bss); the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVNCM) 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should have been awarded the ARCOM with “V” device for heroism for participation in operations against an enemy force in Vietnam.  He also claims that he was never issued the awards that he earned while on active duty.  These awards are documented in his record and on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  They include the NDSM; the VSM/w 5 bss; and the RVNCMV.  He contends that he is being treated for a post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of a combat neurosis that resulted from his heroism in an operation in Vietnam against an armed enemy force.  He concludes by indicating that he served his country with valor and distinction while in Vietnam 

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, counsel restates the applicant’s requests and indicates that the applicant deserves relief based on the fact that his record of service was exemplary. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 6 July 1967 for 2 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist) and he was assigned to combat duty in Vietnam for his first permanent duty station.

On 28 December 1967, the applicant arrived in Vietnam and he was assigned for duty with the 14th General Dispensary, United States Army Pacific (USARPAC).  On 13 November 1968, during his tenure in Vietnam, he was promoted to the rank of specialist/E-5 (SP5), which is the highest rank he held on active duty.  He completed his tour in Vietnam on 22 December 1968 and he was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas.  On 8 February 1969, he arrived at Fort Hood where he served until his release from active duty (REFRAD) on 3 July 1969.

The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no documents showing that the applicant was ever recommended for or earned an individual award for heroism or valor during his active duty service.  In addition, there is no entry on his Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) that would indicate that he was ever awarded a heroism or valor decoration.
Block 39 (Campaigns) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 documents that he participated in the Phases III IV, V, and VI of the Vietnam Counter Offensive and the TET Counter Offensive campaigns during his tenure in Vietnam; and 
Block 41 (Awards and Decorations) of his qualification record shows that he earned the NDSM; the VSM; the RVNCM; and the Marksman Rifle Marksmanship Medal during his active duty service. 

On 3 July 1969, the applicant was honorably REFRAD after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 28 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by him upon his separation verified in block 24 (Decorations, Medals, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) that he had earned the VSM/w 5 bss; the NDSM; the RVNCM; and the Marksman Rifle Marksmanship Badge.  There was no heroism or valor award listed on this separation document. 

The record contains a DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards) which was prepared at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) that shows that on 7 December 1999, they authorized the issue of the NDSM, the RVNCM, and the VSM w/1 silver service star (representing 5 bss) to the applicant.  This document also indicated that these awards would be mailed to the applicant by Soldier Systems Directorate of the United States Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania within 90 days.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 1-14 (Time Limitations) states, in pertinent part, that each recommendation for an award of a military decoration must be entered administratively into military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.  It also states that no military decoration, except the Purple Heart, will be awarded more than 3 years after the act or period of service to be honored. 

Paragraph 1-15 (Lost Recommendations) indicates that if the Secretary of the Army determines that a statement setting forth the distinguished act, achievement, or service, and a recommendation for official recognition was made and supported by sufficient evidence within 2 years after the distinguished service, and no award was made because the statement was lost, or through inadvertence the recommendation was not acted upon; he or she may, within 
2 years after the date of the determination, award any appropriate military decoration.  

Paragraph 3-16 (Army Commendation Medal) contains guidelines and criteria for award of the ARCOM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the ARCOM is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  Awards of the ARCOM may be made for acts of valor performed under circumstances described above which are of lesser degree than required for award of the Bronze Star Medal.  

Paragraph 3-18 provides the rules for processing the DA Form 638 (Award Recommendation), which is required to initiate, process, and approve award recommendations of all U.S. Army individual decorations, to include valor and heroism decorations.  Table 3-3 (Delegation of Award Approval Authority-Wartime Conditions) indicates that commanding generals of separate units in the rank of major general is authorized to approve the award of the ARCOM.  

Paragraph 6-5 contains guidance on the "V" device, which is worn to denote participation in acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy.  It states, in pertinent part, that the "V" device was authorized for wear on the ARCOM for heroic acts or valorous deeds not warranting awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross or the Bronze Star Medal with "V" device. 

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 had never been issued the awards he received while on active duty.  However, the evidence of record indicates that the NPRC authorized the issue of these awards in December 1999 and the applicant should have received them from the Soldier Systems Directorate of the United States Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania within 90 days of that approval.  The Board advises the applicant to query the NPRC if he has still not received those awards. 

2.  Notwithstanding the contention of the applicant, the Board found no evidentiary basis to conclude that he was actually recommended for the ARCOM with “V” device, that this award was approved by the appropriate authority, or that the award was authorized in published orders, which are all elements required by the regulation in order to authorize a member be awarded the ARCOM with “V” device.

3.  While the Board noted the applicant’s exemplary combat service in Vietnam, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically award a decoration for heroism or valor based on service in a combat zone.  By regulation, a member must be recommended for the award, and each award is approved by the appropriate authority based on the merits of each individual recommendation.  There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant was ever recommended for an ARCOM with “V” device or any other heroism or valor award.  Therefore, the Board concluded that the requested relief is not warranted.  

4.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

5.  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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___ra ___  ___js____  __rjw ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038021	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  46	107.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.