MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           11 October 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057486

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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:  That his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to add six Air Medals and the Purple Heart.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was given six Air Medals in 1964, but they were taken from him because they were damaged and he was told new ones would be reissued.  Those medals were never reissued as promised.  As for the Purple Heart, he was wounded in a crash and told he would receive the Purple Heart.  He never received that decoration as promised.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1950, was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of magazine keeper, was promoted to pay grade E-5, and was honorably released from active duty at the expiration of his term of service on 23 July 1953.

He reenlisted on 18 August 1953, was awarded the MOS of heavy weapons infantryman, served in Korea from 15 March through 6 September 1954, and was promoted to pay grade E-6.  He immediately reenlisted on 6 September 1960, was awarded the MOS of helicopter mechanic, served in Vietnam from 12 June 1963 through 15 April 1964, and was promoted to pay grade E-7.  He was awarded the Basic Aircraft Crewman Badge during that reenlistment.  He immediately reenlisted once again on 6 September 1966, continued to served as a helicopter mechanic, and served in Vietnam.  He was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with bronze service star, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 Device, and the National Defense Service Medal with bronze service star during that reenlistment.  On 31 August 1970 he was honorably released from active duty and placed on the retired list for years of service the following day.

The applicant’s health records show that on 14 October 1963 he was riding as a door gunner on a helicopter when the helicopter pitched over when it landed on uneven ground, causing 10 South Vietnamese soldiers and the other door gunner to fall on him.  He was diagnosed as having a bruised and swollen ankle and was given the rest of the day off to recuperate.

On 7 October 1968 the applicant was given a Class III Flight Physical examination.  There is no mention of the applicant sustaining any wound in that examination.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Air Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism, for meritorious achievement and for meritorious service (sustained operations).  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  Arabic numerals are now used instead of oak leaf clusters for the second and succeeding awards.  

U.S Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 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) 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.  There was no provision for making the award simply because an aircraft was struck by enemy fire.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for wounds 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 by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

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

1.  While it would appear that the applicant would occasionally serve in a combat capacity on helicopters, his MOS was a helicopter mechanic.  Without evidence to show that he was utilized in a combat capacity on a regular basis, and an indication of how many hours he flew in a combat capacity, there is no basis to award him the Air Medal.

2.  As for his request for the Purple Heart, there is no evidence that the helicopter the applicant was in when he was injured was pitched over as a result of enemy fire.  As such, his bruised and swollen ankle would not warrant the award of the Purple Heart.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___mdm _  ____jhl__  ____jam _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057486	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011011	
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.