PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           2 July 2002        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070801

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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.  The applicant requests award of the Air Medal.

3.  The applicant states that he flew over 20 combat missions during his service in Vietnam, but was never awarded the Air Medal.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted on 17 September 1969.  He served as an infantry indirect fire crewman in Vietnam from 4 March 1970 through 19 January 1971 and was honorably released on 7 September 1971.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214, which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Air Medal as an authorized award.

6.  There are no orders for the Air Medal in the applicant’s service personnel records.  There are no flight hours in the applicant’s service personnel records.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) on the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show entitlement to the Air Medal. 

7.  There is no evidence the applicant received the first award of the Good Conduct Medal.  There also is no evidence the applicant was disqualified by his chain of command from receiving the Good Conduct Medal.  His records do not contain any adverse information and he received conduct and efficiency ratings of “excellent” throughout his service.

8.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This document shows the unit, to which the applicant was assigned, was cited for award of the Valorous Unit Award for actions on 1 May 1970 to 
29 June 1970 by Department of the Army General Orders Number 43, dated 1972.  This award is not shown on his discharge document.

9.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows the applicant is entitled to award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation based on Department of the Army General Orders Number 55, dated 1971.  This award is not shown on his discharge document.

10.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) also shows the applicant is entitled to award of the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation based on Department of the Army General Orders Number 55, dated 1971.  This award is not shown on his discharge document.

11.  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.

12.  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.  
  
13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he flew over 20 combat missions during his service in Vietnam.  However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which supports this contention.          

2.  There is no evidence of record available to the Board, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows he was recommended for, awarded, or otherwise qualified for award of the Air Medal.  Therefore, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence on which to base an award of the Air Medal in this case.  

3.  The applicant is entitled to the first award of the Good Conduct Medal based on completion of qualifying service from 17 September 1969 to 7 September 1971 ending with termination of a period of Federal military service.  Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his military records to show this award.

4.  The applicant’s unit received the Valorous Unit Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation while he was assigned to it.  Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his military records to show these unit awards.

5.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only 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 first award of the Good Conduct Medal, Valorous Unit Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation. 

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

BOARD VOTE:  

KAK___  AAO_____  RJW_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Karol A. Kennedy________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070801	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020702	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0018	
2.	107.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.