PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:          11 SEPTEMBER 2003                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003083796

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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, in effect, that his records be corrected to reflect award of multiple Air Medals, a Bronze Star Medal, and the Aircraft Crew Member Badge.  He also asks that consideration be given to awarding him an Air Medal and Bronze Star Medal with “V” device, and notes that he was recommended for a Silver Star.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was recommended for the Air Medal, a Bronze Star Medal, a Silver Star, and the Aircraft Crew Member Badge, which the applicant refers to as the “Air Crewman Wings.”  He states that his recommendation for an award of the Bronze Star Medal contained a notation to “retype” a portion of the recommendation and believes that the recommendation was never retyped and hence was not processed to conclusion.  He also notes that the individual who recommended him for award of the Bronze Star Medal (a Major F) indicated that he (the applicant) had a total of 354 hours of flight time during his first 8 months in country.  He states his commander, a Major G, recommended him for several awards but the major was wounded and subsequently departed Vietnam because of medical reasons.  

4.  The applicant also believes that because of the combat situation, his unit’s involvement in the TET Counteroffensive, the fact that his unit was not co-located with its parent unit, and wounds sustained by his commander and unit clerk, the recommendations were never submitted.  He states that in conversations with other unit members, during three unit reunions, that unit members who served in the organization after 1968 did not have problems receiving awards, as did individuals serving prior to 1968.  The applicant notes that a recent discovery of the "old recommendation" and discussions with fellow unit members at a reunion in January 2000 convinced him that he earned these decorations.

5.  In addition to his self-authored statement, the applicant submits a copy of a 
5 November 1967 recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal, and 11 letters supporting the applicant’s petition for the various awards, and a copy of an October 1967 Letter of Commendation.  

6.  The applicant entered active duty on 30 September 1966 and completed training as a clerk typist (71B) prior to being assigned to Vietnam in March 1967.

7.  The applicant’s Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) indicates that the applicant was assigned to the 155th Aviation Company upon his arrival in Vietnam.  His “principal duty” is listed as “Clerk typist. Helicopter Gunner.”  However, it is unclear when the information on the Department of the Army Form 20 was typed.

8.  The 5 November 1967 recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal, authored by Major F, notes that he (Major F) was the applicant’s commander between “March 1967 – 1968 November.”  In Major F’s letter of support for the applicant’s petition he indicated that he was the applicant’s commander between March 1967 and November 1967.

9.  In the November 1967 recommendation, Major F indicated that the applicant had been assigned duties as the “Senior Flight Operations Specialist” and that he was a highly motivated and very professional soldier.  He noted that although the applicant’s “primary duties were administrative in nature, he would repeatedly volunteer for duty as a crewman on Combat Assault Missions.”  Major F indicated that the applicant accumulated 250 hours of combat assault flying time, and 104 hours of night direct combat support, in addition to his “outstanding performance of his regular duties.”  Major F concluded by noting that it was his “sincere desire that this exceptional soldier be awarded the Bronze Star for Meritorious Service.”

10.  In an undated letter of support, authored by Major F, and submitted by the applicant in support of his request, Major F indicated that the applicant “was most deserving of this award” and that the only reason that the applicant did not receive the award “was that our unit was heavily engaged in numerous assault operations, with limited personnel available.”  

11.  In a second undated letter, also authored by Major F, he indicated that the applicant “served honorably as a Door Gunner Crewman” and during his 9 months in command the applicant flew a total of 354 hours, 250 hours in combat assault and 104 hours in direct support of combat flying night missions of emergency resupply and flare standby dropping illumination.”  He states the applicant was eligible for a minimum of 12 Air Medals based on 25 Combat assault hours and 50 Direct Support of combat hours, and that he accepted full responsibility for his failure to make certain the applicant received the award “to which he was entitled.”

12.  An October 1967 Letter of Commendation from a Major H commended the applicant “upon my (Major H’s) departure” from the unit.  Major H was the Operations Officer of the applicant’s unit.  The letter noted that the applicant “distinguished” himself in “all areas of flight operation in the position of Senior Flight Operations Specialist.”  It commended the applicant for his “constant awareness of changes in regulations, and standard operating procedures” and his “presence at the operations sites when the company was in the field.”  The letter of commendation did not mention that the applicant had served as a door gunner, or volunteered as a flight crewmember.  However, in a February 2002 letter supporting the applicant’s petition for award of the Bronze Star Medal and Air Medal, Major H, now a retired Lieutenant Colonel, did note that the applicant “flew as door gunner on at least 25 combat assault missions with total combat flying hours in excess of 250 hours during this time frame.”

13.  The remaining letters, submitted in support of the applicant’s petition to the Board, noted that the applicant served as a door gunner on numerous assault operations and they supported his request for award of the Air Medal.  One letter noted that the applicant more than earned an Air Medal or Bronze Star Medal for valor during an aerial operation in which he served as a door gunner and exposed himself to enemy fire while guiding the aircraft to a specific site in order to extract a reconnaissance team which was pinned down.  

14.  Another letter, dated 7 January 2002 from a Mr. B, noted that the applicant was the first to engage an enemy team which had penetrated their compound on 4 January 1968.  He stated that the applicant sounded the alarm and then directed the actions of others as they joined in repelling the enemy team from the compound.  The author of that statement recalls that the unit commander, a Major G, asked for witness statements to support an award recommendation, and that the Bronze Star Medal and Silver Star were mentioned. Mr. B also indicated that the applicant was recommended for a Silver Star for an incident at the “beginning of TET 1968” when, as a member of a reactionary force, the applicant and another soldier held off an attack on a water pumping station.

15.  The applicant departed Vietnam in March 1968 and was initially assigned to an artillery unit in Germany.  His Department of the Army Form 20 indicates that his principal duty was as a Flight Operations Specialist (71P).  In April 1968 the applicant was awarded a Primary MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) of 71P (Flight Operations Specialist) retroactive to 16 August 1967.  He was subsequently assigned to an infantry unit in Germany and awarded an infantry MOS (11B).

16.  In December 1968 the applicant qualified as an expert with the M-14 rifle and was awarded the associated badge and component bar.  That information, however, was omitted from his separation document.

17.  The applicant was in Germany until August 1969 when he returned to the United States and processed for separation under an early discharge program to attend school.  The applicant was released from active duty on 25 August 1969, in pay grade E-5, with an honorable characterization of service.  His separation document, which he authenticated, does reflect entitlement to the Vietnam Service and Campaign Medals, but does not reflect award of the Air Medal, Bronze Star Medal, Aircraft Crew Member Badge, or the Silver Star.

18.  The applicant’s Department of the Army Form 20 does contain a typed entry “ACM [Army Commendation Medal] 1st Awd [award] (“V” dev[ice])” with an authority for the award listed as Army Regulation 670-5-1 in item 41 (awards and decorations).  The item also contains an entry “AirMedal” and the authority “155th HelAssCo [Helicopter Assault Company], RVN [Republic of Vietnam].”  Both of those entries, however, are typed in a different font than the other entries on the form and neither of the entries are supported by any documents in the applicant’s file.  A review of files at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland, by a member of the Board’s staff failed to produce orders confirming either decoration, or any evidence of a recommendation for either award.

19.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states, in pertinent part, that the Aircraft Crewmember Badge may be permanently awarded to an individual on flying status, who performed duties for not less than 12 months as a crew chief, flight engineer, observer, gunner, aircraft maintenance supervisor, or technical inspector, and be qualified for and hold a principal duty in one of those positions. 

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Bronze Star Medal was established in 1944 and awarded for heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service, not involving participation in aerial flight, but in connection with military operations against an armed enemy.  Awards for acts of heroism, are for those acts performed under circumstance which are of lesser degree than required for award of the Silver Star.

21.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Air Medal was established in 1942 and may be awarded to recognize single acts of merit or heroism, or for meritorious service.  Awards for acts of heroism are for acts of a lesser degree than required for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  Awards may be made for single acts of meritorious achievement, involving superior airmanship, are of a lesser degree than required for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross, but which are, nevertheless accomplished with distinction beyond that normally expected.  Awards for meritorious service may be made for sustained distinction in the performance of duties involving regular and frequent participation in aerial flight for a period of at least 6 months.  The regulation notes that award of the Air Medal is primarily intended to recognize those personnel who are on current crewmember or noncrewmember flying status which requires them to participate in aerial flight on a regular and frequent basis in the performance of their primary duties.  However, it may also be awarded to certain other individuals whose combat duties require regular and frequent flying in other than a passenger status, or individuals who perform a particularly noteworthy act while performing 
the function of a crewmember, but who are not on flying status.  

22.  United States Army Vietnam 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.  There was no provision for making the award simply because an aircraft was struck by enemy fire.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Silver Star was established in 1918 and awarded for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States.  The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless been performed with marked distinction.

24.  As with all personnel decorations, an award of the Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, and Silver Star, requires a recommendation, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders.

25.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides that the Army 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 Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond.  There is no evidence in the applicant's official military personnel file that his commander ever disqualified him for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  His conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his military service were excellent and his records contain no evidence of any disciplinary actions or incidents of misconduct.

26.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 notes that the applicant’s unit (155th Aviation Company) was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and participated in three designated campaigns (Vietnam Counteroffensive II and III and TET Counteroffensive) while the applicant was a member of the organization.  The TET Counteroffensive campaign encompassed the period 30 January 1968 through 1 April 1968.  Three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal should reflect his campaign participation.

27.  As a matter of information, Title 10, United States Code, section 1130, established a provision whereby upon request by a Member of Congress the Secretary of the Army can now review proposals for awards, or the upgrading of a decoration, that would not otherwise be authorized due to limitations established by law or policy for timely submission of a recommendation for such an award.  In the applicant’s case, because there is no evidence that a Silver Star recommendation was ever entered into official channels within the prescribed time limits, this provision in the law may provide him an opportunity to have his congressional representative initiate a new recommendation on his behalf.  If he elects to pursue this avenue he may wish to contract his congressional representative, provide him with the details of his actions including any supporting statements, and then have his congressional representative initiate an appropriate award recommendation.  The Awards Branch of the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), located on Eisenhower Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia would be the agency designated by the Secretary of the Army to review new award recommendations initiated under this provision in the law.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant may have volunteered and performed on several occasions as a door gunner, his records do not confirm that was his principal duty.  Additionally, there is no evidence the he was on flight status.  As such, the Board concludes that the applicant did not meet the basic qualification requirements for award of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge.

2.  The Board recognizes the numerous letters supporting the applicant’s petition for awards which he believes he earned during his tour of duty in Vietnam.  However, the Board notes that the letters supporting the applicant’s awards were rendered years after the fact, and, with the exception of the recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal, are not supported by any evidence that the applicant was recommended for, or awarded any of those decorations.

3.  The two documents which are available to the Board, and which the Board believes likely gives the most accurate accounting of the situation at the time, are the November 1967 award recommendation and the October 1967 letter of commendation.  The Board notes that the letter of commendation recognized the applicant for his exceptional performance of duty in the flight operations arena.  It makes no mention of any flight hours, or extraordinary performance of duty as a door gunner.  The letter of commendation was authored by the operations officer who would have been familiar with the duties of the applicant during the period in question.

4.  The second document, authored by the applicant’s unit commander in November 1967 noted that the applicant was a “highly motivated and very professional soldier” and that he repeatedly volunteered for duty as a crewman on combat assault missions, accumulating more than 300 hours of flight time.  The commander, however, recommended that the applicant be awarded a Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service and made no mention of recommending him for an Air Medal.  The Board concludes, based on the information contained in the November 1967 recommendation, that the applicant’s voluntary performance of flight duties was intended to support his recommendation for an award of the Bronze Star Medal and not as evidence that he should also be awarded an Air Medal.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes that while the applicant may have also performed duties involving aerial flight, those duties were not his primary duty.  Although they certainly would have contributed to the accomplishment of the unit’s mission and warranted consideration when determining an appropriate level of an award for the applicant, the Board does not believe that an award of the Air Medal is appropriate in this instance.  Rather, the Board concludes, as noted in the November 1967 recommendation, that the applicant’s performance of his primary duties as a flight operations specialist, in addition to his willingness to volunteer for more hazardous flight duties, warrant an award of the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service.  As such, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate, and in the interest of justice, to award the applicant a Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service in recognition of his contributions to the 155th Aviation Company during his tour of duty with that organization.

6.  In the absence of evidence from official military records which indicates that the applicant was recommended for any of the other decorations which he is seeking, including the Air Medal, an Air Medal with “V” device, a Silver Star, or a Bronze Star Medal with “V” device, the Board finds that the supporting statements, rendered more than 25 years after the fact, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to award the applicant those decorations.

7.  The Board does note that the applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 25 August 1969.  There is no evidence his commander ever disqualified him from receiving the award and no evidence of any misconduct which would justify denying him the award.  In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the applicant met the basic qualifications for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and it would be appropriate and in the interest of equity to award him that decoration for the period 30 September 1966 through 25 August 1969.

8.  The Board also notes that the applicant qualified as an expert with the M-14 rifle and was awarded the associated badge and component bar.  His records should be corrected accordingly.

9.  The evidence also confirms that the applicant is entitled to the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal.  His records should be corrected accordingly.

10.  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:

a.  by awarding the individual concerned the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service while assigned to the 155th Aviation Company;

b.  by awarding the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 
30 September 1966 through 25 August 1969;

c.  by showing that he qualified as an expert with the M-14 rifle and was awarded the associated badge and component bar; and

d.  by showing that he is entitled to the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal.  

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__SK ___  __CJP __  __JTM___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
					(Note Recommendation)
________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Stanley Kelley_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083796	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.