PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 December 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000044211

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub 		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  In effect, the applicant requests award of Bronze Star medals, award of the Air Medal, and award of the Purple Heart.  He also requests that his record show that he was a patrol leader in the duty MOS (military occupational specialty) of 11F4P, with Company L (Ranger), 75th Infantry. 
 
3.  The applicant provides a copy of a 21 June 1969 letter from his commanding officer to the Personnel Officer of the 101st Airborne Division, stating that the applicant was a patrol leader with Company L (Ranger), 75th Infantry, and requesting that the applicant’s records so indicate.

4.  The applicant states that it was standard policy in the 101st Airborne Division to award the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for meritorious service to NCOs finishing their tour in a combat zone.  It was also standard policy to award that medal to NCOs who extended their tour in a combat zone.  He states that he extended his tour on three occasions, and despite assurances from his company commanders, he was not awarded the BSM.

5.  The applicant states that he was wounded in action on 5 May 1969, but was never awarded the Purple Heart.

6.  He states that he should be awarded the Air Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation.

7.  The applicant states that because he argued with a decorations clerk that person threatened to see that he received no awards, which he implies is the reason he did not receive the awards he is requesting.     
 
8.  The applicant entered on active duty on 21 July 1966, trained as an infantryman, and received airborne training at Fort Benning, Georgia.  In         July 1967 the applicant was assigned to Troop A, 2nd Squadron, 17th Cavalry, of the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam.  In March 1968 he was assigned as a scout observer with Company F (LRP), 58th Infantry.  That unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation for its actions while he was assigned to that unit.  On 24 July 1968 his request for a six month extension of his tour in Vietnam was approved, giving him a new date for return to the United States of 19 December 1968.  On 7 January 1969 the applicant was promoted to Sergeant, pay grade E-5.  

9.  On 20 February 1969 he was assigned to Company L (Ranger), 75th Infantry. The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that he was assigned as a squad leader with Company L.  The original copy of the                21 June 1969 letter from his commanding officer requesting that the applicant’s records reflect that he was a patrol leader with Company L is contained in the applicant’s military personnel records jacket.
10.  An installation clearance record (DA Form 137) of 23 June 1969 shows that his company commander rated the applicant’s character and efficiency as excellent.

11.  The applicant returned to the United States in July 1969 and was released from active duty at Fort Dix, New Jersey in the rank of Sergeant on 24 July 1969. He had 2 years, 8 months, and 4 days of service; and 2 years, 1 month, and        3 days of service in Vietnam.  He participated in seven campaigns during his service in Vietnam.  

12.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Parachute Badge.  He was also awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, but the notation showing that he was awarded that medal does not credit him with participation in seven campaigns. 
The applicant’s military records contain no derogatory information, e.g., record of nonjudicial punishment, letters of reprimand, etc.

13.  Military pay vouchers for May, June, and July of 1969 show that the applicant was receiving parachute pay.

14.  Submitted with his application are recently prepared recommendations for awards, one for the Bronze Star Medal and one for the Air Medal, from the applicant’s former company commander.  That person stated that the applicant’s service as a long range patrol team member on missions behind enemy lines in a combat zone from November 1968 to February 1969, was exemplary.  He stated that previous recommendations for award of the Bronze Star Medal were lost, and thereby not acted upon.  He stated that the applicant’s service as an aerial observer/radio relay [soldier] on fixed wing aircraft and a temporary helicopter crew member while in support of long range patrol missions from October 1968 through February 1969, was exemplary.  He stated that previous recommendations for award of Air Medals were based upon records of flight and specific instances of valor under fire.  The recommendations were submitted in 1968 and 1969, but apparently lost.  He stated that the applicant earned an Air Medal. 

15.  In an undated letter to the VA, a former soldier stated that he was a medic on a long range reconnaissance team of Company L, 75th Infantry, and during a ladder extraction of two helicopters, the helicopter which he was in was downed by a combination of mechanical malfunction and enemy action, killing one member of the patrol team, and wounding the applicant, who was the team leader.  The applicant was wounded in the face and right hand.  He treated the applicant, removing a shard of metal from his hand, and after extraction, both he and the applicant were treated at an aid station.

16.  In a 6 June 1998 letter, another former soldier, who stated that he was the assistant team leader, related a similar but more detailed, account of the above incident.  He also stated that one member of the team was killed, and the applicant was wounded, in that he had a piece of metal that went through the palm of his hand.  He stated that the metal was removed, a field dressing applied, and the applicant was treated by company medics after they were extracted.  This individual stated that the former soldier [the medic who gave the previous account of the incident] and others were also team members.

17.  In a 2 December 1998 statement, another former soldier stated that he was involved in the rescue of the applicant and members of his team on 5 May 1969. He also said that one soldier had been killed and that the applicant’s right hand was bleeding from a shrapnel wound, and that he also had numerous cuts on his face and arms from the helicopter crash.  He stated that after the extraction the applicant received treatment at the aid station.

18.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

19.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the
termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service in military operations against an armed enemy.  The primary requirement for award of this, or any decoration, is that a formal recommendation must be prepared and administratively entered into official military channels by someone having witnessed or with knowledge of the act, achievement, or service to be honored.

21.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also 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. 

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 1-14 states 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.  No military decoration, except the Purple Heart will be awarded more than 3 years after the act or period of service to be honored.  These time limitations do not apply to retroactive and conversion awards made in confirmation of recognition of previously issued orders, letters, certificates or in exchange of decorations hereinafter authorized.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 requires formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders for all personal decorations. Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations or reconsideration.  Specifically, the regulation provides that, if there is evidence that a recommendation was made and supported by evidence and no award was made because the recommendation was lost or through inadvertence not acted upon, the Secretary of the Army may award any appropriate military decoration.

24.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, as indicated above, requires formal recommendations and approval for all personal decorations.  There were, however, unwritten policies in some commands, i.e., division, separate brigades, etc., in Vietnam, whereby a soldier received a medal, Bronze Star or Army Commendation Medal, after a certain period of service in the command.  For instance, a Sergeant, after serving a tour of duty in Vietnam, would receive an Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service; a Captain would receive a Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement after six months in country, and another BSM upon completion of a 12 month tour of duty.  The recommendation and approval of an award were in effect, “automatic.” 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant served his country faithfully and honorably.  His military record does not contain any adverse information.  He had over two years of service in Vietnam and attained the rank of Sergeant.  He is entitled to award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant participated in seven campaigns during his tour in Vietnam.  He is entitled to award of the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star (depicting participation in five campaigns) and two bronze service stars (one for each campaign).  The applicant served in Company F, 58th Infantry, during the time when that unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation for its actions.  He is entitled to those awards.

3.  The applicant’s contention that it was standard policy in the 101st Airborne Division to award the BSM for meritorious service to NCOs finishing their tour in Vietnam, and to award that medal to NCOs who extended their tour in a combat zone, is believable.  Nevertheless, a recommendation for the award and approval of that recommendation was yet a requirement.  The applicant’s former company commander has made the recommendation, albeit 30 years after the fact.  His statement that the applicant is deserving of the award, and his statement that previous recommendations for award of the BSM were lost and not acted upon, are accepted by the Board.  The applicant is entitled to award of the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service for the period recommended by his former commanding officer.  However, the applicant’s contention that he should be awarded more than one BSM because of his three tour extensions in Vietnam is not accepted.  There are no recommendations to support that request. 

4.  By the same token, the applicant’s former commanding officer’s statement that the applicant’s service as an aerial observer/radio relay [soldier] in fixed wing aircraft, and as a temporary helicopter crew member, in support of long range patrol missions, were exemplary; and his statement that previous recommendations for Air Medals were submitted, but lost, are also accepted by the Board.  That person recommended that the applicant be awarded the Air Medal.  The applicant is entitled to award of the Air Medal for meritorious service for the period recommended by his former unit commander. 

5.  Three former soldiers support the applicant’s contention that he was wounded in action, two from members of his unit, one of whom was a medic who treated the applicant for his wounds.  The other was a soldier involved in rescuing the applicant and members of his team after their helicopter had been downed.  All relate a similar story concerning the incident.  He was wounded in action and treated for his wounds, albeit by a medic.  Unfortunately, there is no official record of this treatment.  There are, however, the statements from the three former soldiers substantiating that the applicant was wounded.  The Board believes that those statements are true, and are sufficient reason to conclude that the applicant was wounded in action, even absent an official record of treatment.  The applicant is entitled to award of the Purple Heart.
 
6.  The applicant’s record does show that he was a patrol leader in the duty MOS (military occupational specialty) of 11F4P, with Company L (Ranger),                75th Infantry.  No action is required by the Board in this regard.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 21 November 1966 through 24 July 1969; the Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star and two bronze service stars; the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation; the Bronze Star Medal for service for the period November 1968 to February 1969; the Air Medal for achievement for the period October 1968 to February 1969; and the Purple Heart for wounds received in action on 5 May 1969. 

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___amc__  ___jam__  ___alr___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000044211	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001205	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PLUS	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  46	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.