PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            19 April 2000     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031794

	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.  

	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 the Army Good Conduct Medal, an Air Medal and the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device.  He states, in effect, that he should be awarded the Good Conduct Medal based on his active and inactive military service.  He notes that other members of his unit were awarded the Air Medal and he believes he was merely overlooked.  He states that he participated in numerous combat assaults from helicopters and made “combat assaults from helicopters into landing zones under fire.”  The applicant also submits a copy of orders awarding him the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 16 November 1967 and successfully completed training as a medical specialist.  On 20 September 1968, while assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, the applicant, who was then serving in pay grade E-3, was convicted by a summary court-martial, in consonance with his plea of guilty, for stealing several items of food, valued at $34.12, which was the property of the United States Army.  His punishment included forfeiture, restriction and reduction to pay grade E-1.

4.  On 29 September 1968 the applicant departed Fort Lewis enroute to Vietnam. There is no indication that his reduction to pay grade E-1 ever occurred and in January 1969 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-4.

5.  In May 1969 the applicant was wounded as a result of hostile action and awarded the Purple Heart.  On 14 May 1969 he was awarded a Bronze Star Medal with “V” device for his heroic action.  The applicant remained in Vietnam until September 1969 and was awarded two additional Bronze Star Medals, one for meritorious service during the period 1 November 1968 through 30 June 1969 and the other for meritorious service during the period 1 December 1968 through 31 July 1969.

6.  On 13 November 1970 the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service.  While his separation report does reflect entitlement to three Bronze Star Medals (BSM 2nd OLC) it does not indicate that one of the Bronze Star Medals was for heroism and included the “V” device.

7.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (enlisted qualification record) indicates that on two separate occasions his conduct was rated as “good.”  He received a “good” conduct rating following his court-martial conviction in September 1968 and again in May 1970.

8.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 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. 

9.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 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.

10.  U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 provided, in pertinent part, guidelines for award of the Air Medal.  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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that he was ever recommended for, or awarded, an Air Medal.  As such there is no basis to now award him the decoration merely because he believes he is entitled to the award and because other individuals in his unit may have received the award.

2.  While the applicant did completed sufficient service to qualify for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal the Board concludes that based on the summary court-martial conviction and two “good” ratings in the area of conduct it would not be appropriate to award him that decoration.  The Board notes that the applicant was never reduced in accordance with his court-martial conviction and to now overlook the conviction entirely by awarding him the Good Conduct Medal would be inappropriate.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant was awarded three awards of the Bronze Star Medal as indicated on his separation document and confirmed in documents in file.  However, his separation document does not indicate that one of the three Bronze Star Medals was awarded with a “V” device denoting that it was for heroism.  The Board concludes that it would be appropriate to correct his records to reflect that one of the Bronze Star Medals was for heroism.

4.  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 by showing that the individual concerned was awarded three awards of the Bronze Star Medal, two for meritorious service and one with a “V” device for heroism.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___jph__  ___eja__  ___vbc__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031794	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000419	
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.