IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150007576 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to reflect award of the Bronze Star Medal (BSM). 2. The applicant states: * the BSM is not indicated on his DD Form 214 – orders are attached * he only recently became aware that he could request correction of his records 3. The applicant provides: * memorandum from retired Army Major H____, dated 16 February 2010 * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 16 February 2010 * BSM endorsement from First Lieutenant E____, dated 22 May 1968 * carbon copy of a document purported to be BSM award orders * DD Form 214 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 September 1967. 3. He served in Vietnam from on or about 26 February 1968 through 17 February 1969 where he was assigned to Company E, 709th Maintenance  Battalion, 9th Infantry Division. 4. He provided an endorsement from First Lieutenant E____, dated 22 May 1968, recommending him for award of the BSM for meritorious achievement and outstanding performance of duty as a wireman for Company E, 709th Maintenance Battalion, during the Tet Offensive from 25 February 1968 through 30 March 1968. 5. There is no indication this recommendation was processed through his complete chain of command to the award approval authority for final action. The applicant provided a carbon copy of a document he claims are orders awarding him the BSM, but the copy he provided is incomplete. His service records do not contain orders awarding him the BSM. 6. Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division, General Orders Number 1136, dated 31 January 1969, awarded him the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in the Republic of Vietnam from February 1968 to January 1969/ 7. He was honorably released from active duty on 15 September 1970 after completing 3 years of active service. His DD Form 214 does not show award of the BSM. 8. Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show award of the BSM. 9. The applicant provided a memorandum and accompanying DA Form 638, dated 16 February 2010, from retired Army Major H____, a grammar school friend, recommending him for award of the BSM for meritorious achievement and outstanding performance of duty during the Tet Offensive from February 1968 through March 1968. The letter states the applicant was previously recommended for award of the BSM by his commanding officer, First Lieutenant E____, but the paperwork was lost by Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. There is no indication that the author of the letter and DA Form 638 was either in the applicant's chain of command or that he had first-hand knowledge of the applicant's actions in Vietnam during the period for the recommended award. 10. A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System, an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command Awards and Decorations Branch, failed to reveal orders awarding the applicant the BSM. 11. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. It states the BSM is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy, or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The recommending official must have been senior in grade to the individual being recommended for the award or have first-hand knowledge of the event at the time of the action or service. Additionally, the recommending official must have knowledge of all the actions for service cited. The recommending official must have either observed the actions or been provided information by an individual who observed the actions. Recommending officials who did not personally witness the action must have been associated, by virtue of their position in the command, with the incident and/or the individual being recommended for the award. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for correction of his DD Form 214 to reflect award of the BSM was carefully considered. 2. A thorough review of his available records did not confirm he was awarded the BSM. Although the evidence shows First Lieutenant E____ recommended him for award of the BSM, there is no evidence the recommendation was processed through the chain of command and approved. The carbon copy of a document provided by the applicant purported to be orders for award of the BSM is incomplete. 3. Award of the BSM requires a formal recommendation, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders. 4. A grammar school friend of the applicant, a retired Army major, composed a memorandum and completed a DA Form 638 on 16 February 2010, retroactively recommending the applicant for award of the BSM for the achievements listed in First Lieutenant E____'s recommendation from 1968. There is no indication the retired Army major was either a member of the applicant's chain of command or had first-hand knowledge of the applicant's actions in Vietnam during the period for the recommended award. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ____X___ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ____________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007576 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150007576 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1