MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 September l999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015738

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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:  The mother of a deceased commissioned officer, referred to hereafter as the former service member (FSM), requests upgrade of his Bronze Service Medal with “V” Device (Posthumous Award) to a Distinguished Service Medal (sic: Cross).

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that she was attending a Gold Star service in St. Louis and had been asked if her son had been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal (DSM).  She states to her Congressman that she believes he was entitled to the award since she understood that he saved the life of a Vietnamese officer.  Besides her letter to the Congressman, she includes a second letter to the Congressman stating that she does not agree with the United States Army Reserve Personnel Command (AR-PERSCOM) that only one medal can be awarded for a given action;  letters from the AR-PERSCOM, dated 22 December l997 and 22 April l998, to the Congressman;  copies of the general orders announcing the award for valor and a second order announcing the award of the Bronze Star Medal for service;  and the notification from the Adjutant General of the Army, dated 9 July l970, informing her that her son had been awarded the National Order of Vietnam, Fifth Class and the Gallantry Cross with Palm (both awards of the Republic of Vietnam).    

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The FSM’s military records show:

He had prior enlisted service from 27 December l965 to 5 December l966.  In June l966, he entered an officer candidate school and on 6 December l966, he was appointed and commissioned as a second lieutenant, Army Reserve (USAR), Artillery.  He served as a Hawk Missile Officer in Okinawa from February l967 to October l968.  He was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant on 6 December l967.

He was assigned to duties in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) on l7 November l968, and was promoted to the rank of captain on 6 December l968.  While in the RVN, he served as a battalion supply officer, then was assigned to the United States Military Assistance Command-Vietnam (USMACV) as an advisor on 
7 April l969.

On 3 May l969, he was killed in action as the result of a gun shot wound to his chest.  

On 28 May l969, General Orders Number 2703 was issued by the USMACV, awarding the FSM the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device (Posthumously), for heroism in connection with operation against a hostile force.  Essentially, the FSM’s unit came under attack during a night operation.  The executive officer (nationality not shown, but most likely a Vietnamese officer) of the unit he was advising was wounded.  Disregarding his own safety, the FSM and his medical advisor crawled across 200 yards of rice paddy to give aid.  He also coordinated with higher headquarters for medial evacuation and friendly fire support.  His actions were instrumental in saving many friendly lives.  

On the same date, General Orders 2704 from the USMACV awarded the FSM the Bronze Star Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster) (Posthumously).  This award was essentially for service from l9 November l968 to 3 May l969.  

On 22 August l969, the Republic of Vietnam posthumously awarded the FSM the National Order of Vietnam, Fifth Class and the Gallantry Cross with Palm for his heroic actions on 3 May l969, in which he gave his life.  

The FSM’s other awards and decorations included the Purple Heart, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service. The governing regulation also states that all personal decorations require formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders.  

This same regulation, also provides, in pertinent part, that the Silver Star (the next higher award above the Bronze Star Medal for valor), is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy.  The required gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  

This same regulation, further provides, in pertinent part, that the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person, who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States not justifying award of the Medal of Honor.  The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.

The DSM is differentiated from the Distinguished Service Cross in that the DSM is for exceptionally meritorious service to the Government in a position of great responsibility as opposed to extraordinary heroism.  

Army Regulation 600-8-2, provides in paragraph 3-1c, that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  
There is no evidence in the FSM’s records that he was considered for or recommended for an award above the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device.  Further, there is no evidence that he was recommended for a higher award which was downgraded.  

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

2.  The FSM received the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device for his actions on 
3 May l969.  The applicant has not presented any evidence that the award process or the decision by the appropriate award approval authority was flawed or otherwise improper.

3.  Based on regulation in effect at the time in question, the FSM’s chain of command, which was present and possessed all the facts at the time in question, had the opportunity to recommend the FSM for a higher award for valor, to include the Distinguished Service Cross.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, that her son was considered for or recommended for a higher award for valor, to include the Silver Star or the Distinguished Service Cross.  Further, there is also no evidence that the recommendation of the officer in charge was downgraded by the chain of command or the award approval authority.   

4.  The award of the DSM would not have been appropriate in that it is an award for achievement, not for valor.  

5.  While the Board can empathize with the mother of the FSM, and understand her desire to insure that her son’s valor was appropriately recognized, in the absence of evidence showing that the award was flawed or was improper, the Board is not predisposed to overturn the decisions of the commanders on the scene at the time in question.  Therefore, the Board has determined that the FSM is not entitled to upgrade of the award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device for his heroic actions on 3 May l969. 

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 in the FSM’s records.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___EO__  ___CJP__  ___INW__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999015738	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990909	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.