MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  26 February 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001062801

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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:  That he be awarded the Soldier’s Medal.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the Army Decorations Board denied the recommendation for his award because they were not presented with the details about the manner in which he performed his act of heroism.  His attempt to have his case re-looked with these additional details was denied.  He submits copies of his award recommendation packet with congressional correspondence and his request for reconsideration of the award in support of his application.

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

At the time of the incident in question, the applicant was serving on active duty in the rank of first lieutenant as the commander of the 85th Ordnance Detachment (EOD) in Vietnam.  On 17 April 1967, the battalion commander of the unit the applicant was supporting wrote a Letter of Appreciation (LOA) through the applicant’s commander to the applicant.  The LOA thanked the applicant for his outstanding service to the battalion during the period 25 January to 24 March 1967.  The LOA stated that the applicant provided the necessary instructions for battalion personnel to successfully remove the less dangerously emplaced mines.  It went on to recognize that the applicant personally removed many of the mines, which were buried or in other dangerous configurations and that this was an extremely hazardous task.  The danger was noted because three other personnel had been killed and several wounded during earlier attempts to remove the minefield.  The applicant was further thanked for his many extra hours insuring that proper safety precautions were carried out.

The applicant’s commander, a colonel, indorsed the LOA to the applicant.  This commander commended the applicant and his unit for unhesitatingly providing timely and professional assistance in removal of a very dangerous minefield.  There is no evidence of record that either of these commanders entered an award recommendation into the proper channels for the applicant’s actions during the required time limit.

Effective 31 January 1980, the applicant was separated from active duty in the rank of major and transferred to the Retired Reserve.  His authorized awards include the Army Commendation Medal with “V” device and the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device and one oak leaf cluster.

The applicant provides a copy of a sworn affidavit from a former Field Artillery captain who was the intelligence officer for the artillery battalion and had direct knowledge of the incident in question.  This former service member (FSM) relates that he was given overall responsibility for removing the minefield and sought assistance from the applicant.  The mission was divided in two parts.  The artillery battalion would remove all mines that could be located and rendered safe.  EOD personnel would remove all other mines.

The operation continued for 2 weeks with the FSM personally entering the minefield and assisting with the disarming operation, when one soldier was killed and the FSM and another soldier were wounded by an exploding mine.  The operation continued about 10 days later and the FSM credits the applicant with personally removing approximately ten percent of the mines, which were too difficult for his artillery personnel.  The FSM also provides a copy of his citation for the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement during the incident in question.

On 23 January 2000, the former artillery battalion commander provided a one-page statement to support the applicant’s request for an award.  The former battalion commander relates a similar chain of events as the Field Artillery captain.  The former artillery battalion commander concludes his statement with acknowledgement that the applicant performed a clear example of outstanding professionalism and heroism at the personal risk of his own life.  He provides no explanation why an award recommendation was not submitted at the time of the event.

On 15 February 2000, a Member of Congress forwarded an award recommendation to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The recommendation was for the Soldier’s Medal for the applicant’s actions between 25 January and 24 March 1967.  On 28 September 2000, the Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of action and service rendered by the applicant did not meet the criteria for award of the Soldier’s Medal and the PERSCOM commander disapproved the award.

On 16 February 2001, the applicant forwarded a request for award reconsideration to PERSCOM outlining his accomplishments again.  His request was returned without action based on the lack of substantive new evidence that was not previously available to the board during the original review.  The PERSCOM response also noted that the Soldier’s Medal is not normally awarded for courageous performance over a sustained period of operational activity.  PERSCOM also noted the applicant’s other awards including the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device and the Army Commendation Medal with “V” device.  Both of these awards were for the performance of his EOD mission, on a specific day, while under enemy fire.

On 26 March 2001, the applicant again wrote to PERSCOM requesting award reconsideration based on his assessment of how he performed the removal of the dangerous mines.  In his judgment this was new relevant evidence that warranted reconsideration.  The PERSCOM response to the applicant again draws his attention to the requirement for substantive new evidence for reconsideration.  The applicant’s account of the details of the removal of the mines was not considered substantive new evidence.

Army Regulations 600-8-22, provides in pertinent part, that the Soldier's Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not involving conflict with the enemy.  The action must have involved personal danger or hazard and the voluntary risk of life.  Awards are not to be based solely upon the saving of a life.  The same degree of heroism is required as for the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.

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.  The Board notes that the Field Artillery captain who had overall responsibility for the mine clearing was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement.  Given the circumstances of this case, it appears to be an appropriate award.

2.  There is no explanation provided by the former battalion commander on why it appears that he forwarded an award recommendation for the Field Artillery captain but only provided a LOA for the applicant.  The Board believes that it was likely that the applicant’s actions at the time, when viewed contemporaneously by those closest to the situation, were closely associated with his EOD mission and not directly related to the risk of his life to save another.

3.  Additionally, none of the parties involved in this award recommendation explain why this recognition is now being forwarded 34 years after the fact.  There is no evidence of record, and none provided by the applicant, that an award recommendation was entered into official channels and lost or otherwise not acted on.

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  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

_jl____  ___rd___  __rw____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062801	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020226	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.