MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            9 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030729

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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:  In effect, that he be awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) and the accompanying Certificate. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that all soldiers serving with the 101st Airborne Division, during the period he served with the unit in Vietnam, were awarded the BSM for service.  He goes on to claim that when he was leaving Vietnam he was told by records personnel that an error had been made and he should continue processing and his award orders would catch up with him later, they never did.  He provides statements from two other members who served in the 101st at the same time as him, which support his contention.  He indicates that he has attempted to correct his records since 1971 and has just now found members of the unit, via the internet, to support his request.  

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

On 16 April 1968, the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31B (Field Radio Mechanic) and he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas for his first permanent duty station.

The applicant’s record shows that he was promoted to sergeant/E-5 on 
10 February 1969, which is the highest rank he held on active duty, and that he was reassigned to Vietnam in April 1969.

On 2 June 1970, he arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Battalion (Bn), 501st Infantry (Inf),
101st Airborne Division.  He performed duties in MOS 31G40 (Tactical Communications Chief) and completed his tour in Vietnam on 1 June 1970, at which time he was reassigned to Italy.

The applicant served in Italy between July 1970 and January 1971, at which time he returned to Fort Hamilton, New York for separation processing.  On 
21 January 1971, the applicant was honorably released from active duty after completing 2 years, 9 months, and 6 days of active military service.  

He was issued and signed a  DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) on the date of his separation.  Block 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of this document listed only the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM); Two Overseas (2O/S) Bars; the Pistol Marksman Badge; the Rifle Sharpshooter Badge; the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM); and the Vietnam Campaign Medal (VCM).  No other awards were documented in the record at this time. 
Block 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Qualification Record) shows that, during his tour in Vietnam, he earned the VSM, the VCM and the ARCOM.  The only other awards listed on his DA Form 20 were 2 O/S Bars and the NDSM.  

His Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) does contain a copy of General Orders Number 14609, issued by Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile), APO San Francisco 96383, which awards the applicant the ARCOM for meritorious achievement from 1 July to 30 November 1969.  However, the MPRJ contains no indication that the applicant was ever recommended for or awarded the BSM.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 1-14 (Time Limitations) states, in pertinent part, 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.  It also states that no military decoration, except the Purple Heart, will be awarded more than 3 years after the act or period of service to be honored. 

Paragraph 1-15 (Lost Recommendations) indicates that if the Secretary of the Army determines that a statement setting forth the distinguished act, achievement, or service, and a recommendation for official recognition was made and supported by sufficient evidence within 2 years after the distinguished service, and that no award was made because the statement was lost, or through inadvertence the recommendation was not acted upon; he or she may, within 
2 years after the date of the determination, award any appropriate military decoration.  However, this requires conclusive evidence of the formal submission of the recommendation into military channels and conclusive evidence of the loss of the recommendation or the failure to act on the recommendation through inadvertence. 

Paragraph 3-13 provides the guidelines for awarding the BSM.  It states that the BSM is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Army of the United States after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or 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.  

Paragraph 3-18 provides the rules for processing the DA Form 638 (Award Recommendation), which is required to initiate, process, and approve award recommendations of all U.S. Army individual decorations, to include valor and heroism decorations.  Table 3-3 (Delegation of Award Approval Authority-Wartime Conditions) indicates that the Senior Army Commander of a force serving in the rank of lieutenant general is authorized to approve the award of the BSM.  

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

1.  Notwithstanding the contention of the applicant, and the support statements from former members of the 101st Airborne Division, the Board found no evidentiary basis to conclude that the applicant was actually recommended for the BSM, that this award was approved by the appropriate authority, or that the award was authorized in published orders, which are all elements required by regulation in order to authorize a member the BSM.  

2.  The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically award the BSM for service to every member of a specific unit.  By regulation, a member must be recommended for the award, and each award is approved by the appropriate authority based on the merits of each individual recommendation. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant was ever recommended for the BSM.  

3.  Additionally, the applicant’s contention that he was told by records personnel that an error had been made and he should continue processing, and his award orders would catch up with him later, could not be substantiated.  The Board reasoned that if an administrative error had been discovered by a records clerk, during out-processing, this should have at least resulted in that clerk making an entry in the applicant’s qualification record.  A review of the applicant’s DA Form 20 reveals no such entry in block 41 (Awards and Decorations).  Therefore, the Board determined there was no basis for relief under the lost recommendation provisions of the regulation.  

4.  The Board also noted that the applicant never raised this issue in the almost 
8 months he continued to serve in the Army subsequent to his departure from Vietnam or at the time of his separation, when he received a DD Form 214 that did not list the BSM as one of his awards.  While the Board cannot draw a firm conclusion from this factor, it does make it appear that the applicant did not feel an entitlement to the BSM until after he was separated, which could have been the result of reflective thinking on his part.  

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

6.  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

___cs___  __tdh ___  __jh  ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030729 	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/03/09	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/06/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	Early Release-School	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  60	107.0014	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.