MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            1 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042256

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 his Bronze Star Medal with “V” device be upgraded to a Silver Star.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he deserves the Silver Star that he originally requested noting his action “clearly was an act deserving of the Silver Star not the Bronze Star.”  He states that his witnesses “are of non impeachable caliber and of the highest caliber infantry soldiers….”  He also notes that the Silver Star recommendation was “reviewed by personnel of lessor military combat records than those of the witnesses.”  The applicant states that “soldiers of lesser caliber and afar from the action cannot and should not sit in judgment of those who were in witness.”  In support of his request he submits a December 1999 statement from one of the individuals who originally recommended the applicant for the Silver Star.  That individual contends that the applicant’s actions “deserved a Distinguished Service Cross” and that he regrets the applicant “didn’t get what [he] actually deserved.”  He also includes a 1998 statement from that same individual who comments on the Army Commendation Medal with “V” device the applicant originally received for his actions on 3 April 1969, as well as copies of the two statements (one dated in 1996 and the other in 1997) which apparently formed the basis of the Silver Star recommendation.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 18 March 1968 after having been a member of the Army Reserve for more than 2 years.  He was trained as an infantryman and in October 1968 was assigned to Vietnam.

On 14 April 1969 he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal with “V” device, along with eight other members of his unit, for his heroic actions on 
3 April 1969.  The 9th Infantry Division published orders confirming the award.

The applicant returned to the United States in October 1969 and on 16 October 1969 was honorably discharged.

A November 1995 letter from “a rifle company commander with the 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam” to officials at the Army Reserve Personnel Center in St. Louis noted that he had recommended the applicant for award of the Silver Star “from a hospital bed in Japan in May 1969” and subsequently learned the applicant had never received the award.

In December 1997 the applicant contacted his congressional representative indicating that he had been recommended for award of the Silver Star for his 

actions on 3 April 1969 while in Vietnam but the “award was not received.”  He noted in his correspondence that the “recommender has resubmitted [the] recommendation.”  Included with the request were two “witness” statements.  One of the statements, dated 15 September 1996, from the same individual who indicated in 1995 that he had recommended the applicant for the Silver Star in 1969 stated that “an eyewitness statement was previously made in May 1969” and that the statement was sent to the battalion administration office but “what became of the statement is not known.”  The author relates the applicant’s actions on 3 April 1969 and concludes by saying his actions “merited the Silver Star or Distinguished Service Cross.”

The second statement, dated 3 September 1997 and authored by the applicant’s former battalion commander, also relates the actions of 3 April 1969 and notes that he was “under the impression that an award for the Silver Star…had been submitted in 1969” but recently found out that his “staff or a higher-level staff had not taken care of this.”  He states that he “concurred that Captain Perkins [the individual who indicated he had recommended the applicant for the Silver Star] and [the applicant] each be recommended for the Silver Star.”  He notes that 27 years later he found out the applicant had only received the Purple Heart for wounds he received that day.  The former battalion commander speculated that the “statement in support of [the applicant’s] recommendation, which was written in May by Captain Perkins…never caught up with my recommendation….”

In November 1999 the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device for gallantry in action on 3 April 1969.

In December 1999 the applicant received a letter from former Captain Perkins who stated his displeasure with the fact that his Silver Star recommendation had been downgraded to a Bronze Star Medal.  He noted that the “bureaucrats have done this to me before” and indicated that he “made this recommendation so strong that they couldn’t downgrade it.  But they did anyway.”

Army Regulation 600-8-22, which established the policies and provisions for the recommendation of awards, states that to be fully effective, an award must be timely and generally requires that award recommendations be submitted within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored and awarded within 3 years.  However, if the Secretary of the Army determines that a recommendation was submitted within established timeframes and no award was made because the recommendation was lost, or through inadvertence the recommendation was 

not acted upon, he or she may, through the Army Decorations Board, award any appropriate military decorations.  There are also provisions within the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which permits congressional representatives to recommend constituents for military decorations outside the established time frames.

Telephonic information from the Army’s Military Awards Branch at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command indicated that the Army Decorations Board is comprised of senior commissioned officers in the grade of 06 and a senior enlisted soldier in the grade of E-9.  They noted that most of the board members have both Vietnam and Gulf War combat experience.

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 notes that within days of the April 1969 action the applicant was awarded an Army Commendation Medal with “V” device.  While the applicant’s supporters now contend that the applicant’s actions were so significant that they may even have warranted a Distinguished Service Cross, officials on the ground at the time of the 1969 action determined that the Army Commendation Medal with ”V” device appropriately recognized the applicant’s actions.

2.  While it is unclear if the Army Decorations Board acted on the Silver Star recommendation as a “lost recommendation” or as a result of the applicant’s congressional representative’s submission the fact remains that they, on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, concluded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device more appropriately recognized the applicant’s actions.  The fact that the applicant and his supporters feel that award does not fully recognize the applicant’s heroic actions is not evidence of error or injustice.

3.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

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 this 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

__lls___  _____bjl  ____jea  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042256	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.