IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 March 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110016405 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) by adding the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) (2nd Award) and Presidential Unit Citation (PUC). 2. He states his DD Form 214 shows he has one ARCOM; however, it should show two ARCOMs and the PUC. 3. He provides a webpage of a PUC certificate. 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. His military personnel records show he was inducted into the Army on 19 July 1967. After the completion of training, he served in military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer). 3. A DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the following: * Item 31 (Foreign Service) – he served in Vietnam from December 1967 through December 1968 * Item 38 (Record of Assignments) – he was assigned to Company A, 65th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division during his tour in Vietnam * Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) – does not show he was awarded the ARCOM (2nd Award) 4. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was honorably released from active duty on 18 July 1969. Item 24 of this form shows he earned the following awards: * National Defense Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * ARCOM * Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) 5. There are no orders in the applicant’s record awarding him the ARCOM (2nd Award). 6. 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 Military Awards Branch of the United States Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders awarding him the ARCOM (2nd Award). 7. He provided a copy of a PUC certificate which shows the 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 5th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division and attached units were awarded the PUC for extraordinary heroism in military operations against an armed enemy for the period 18 August to 20 September 1968. 8. His record is void of documentation showing the platoon he was assigned with while serving in Company A, 65th Engineer Battalion during his tour in Vietnam, and there are no orders attaching the applicant to the 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 5th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division during his service in Vietnam. 9. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam. This pamphlet shows 3rd Platoon, Company A, 65th Engineer Battalion was awarded the PUC for the period 18 August to 20 September 1968. 10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. The ARCOM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. b. The PUC is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action. A unit must display such gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. There is no evidence in the available records and he has not provided any corroborating evidence to show he was awarded the ARCOM (2nd Award). As such, he is not entitled to addition of this award to his DD Form 214. 2. His record is also void of any evidence to show he was assigned to 3rd Platoon, Company A, 65th Engineer Battalion for award of the PUC. 3. In view of the foregoing, he is not entitled to the requested relief. 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 that 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) AR20110016405 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110016405 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1