BOARD DATE: 16 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001120 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____x____ ___x_____ ___x__ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 16 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001120 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends correction of all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned by: a. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 15 November 1963 to 14 November 1966; and b. adding the following awards to his DD Form 214: * Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) * Meritorious Unit Commendation c. deleting from item 24c the entry "USAREUR" and adding the entry "USARPAC – Thailand." 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to any relief in excess of that described above. __________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. BOARD DATE: 16 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001120 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 military record to recognize his service in Thailand during the Vietnam War. 2. The applicant states: a. he never received any awards or medals for his service as a combat medic with the 809th Combat Engineer Battalion in Thailand during the Vietnam War; b. he twice landed in Vietnam just prior to his arrival and immediately after his departure from Thailand, for the refueling of their aircrafts in 1965 and 1966, respectively; and c. refueling the aircrafts required all passengers to exit the plane, thereby confirming his “boots on the ground” in Vietnam on two separate occasions. 3. The applicant provides: * self-authored statement * Letter of Appreciation * Letter of Appreciation 1st Indorsement * wo Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Letters * Xeroxed copy of a DAV Business Card * DD Form 214 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. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 November 1963. He held military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist). 3. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in: a. Item 31 (Foreign Service) he served in U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) –Thailand from 24 June 1965 to through 21 June 1966; b. item 38 (Record of Assignments) he received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings at each of his active duty assignments and he served with Headquarters Company, 809th Engineer Battalion (Construction) in Thailand; and c. Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) he was authorized the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC). 4. The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is void of any derogatory information or a unit commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from receiving the AGCM. 5. He was honorably released from active duty on 14 November 1966, after completing 3 years of creditable active duty service of which 11 months and 28 days was foreign service. His DD Form 214 lists the following awards: * National Defense Service Medal * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 6. Item 24c (Foreign and/or Sea Service) of his DD Form 214 shows he served in U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) and had 11 months and 28 days of foreign service. His record is void of documentation indicating he served in USAREUR. 7. The applicant provides a Letter of Appreciation dated 10 June 1966. In it, the Battalion Surgeon recognized his outstanding performance in various duties while assigned to the Medical Section of the 809th Engineer Battalion. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards. a. Paragraph 2-13 provides guidance on the award of the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM). It states the VSM was awarded to all service members of the Armed Forces of the United States serving in Vietnam and its contiguous waters or airspace thereover, after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973. Service members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia, or the airspace there over, during the same period and serving in direct support of operations in Vietnam are also eligible for this award. Individuals were required to: (1) be attached to or regularly serve for 1 or more days with an organization participating in or directly support military operations; (2) be attached to or regularly serve for 1 or more days aboard a naval vessel directly supporting military operations; (3) actually participate as a crewmember in one or more aerial flights into airspace above Vietnam and contiguous waters directly supporting military operations; or (4) serve on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days in Vietnam or contiguous areas, except that time limit may be waived for personnel participating in actual combat operations. b. Chapter 4 prescribes the policy for award of the AGCM. It states that the AGCM is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's separation stipulated that in order to qualify for the AGCM, a member must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings. 2. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citations and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units during the Vietnam Conflict. This pamphlet shows the 809th Engineer Battalion was cited for award of the MUC for the period February 1962 to February 1966 in Department of the Army General Orders Number 22, dated 1966. The orders cite the unit for its service in building a major road in Thailand. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, provided that item 24c would show the last theater in which service was performed (e.g., USARPAC) and the total amount of foreign service completed during the period covered by the DD Form 214. DISCUSSION: 1. General orders awarded his unit in Thailand the MUC during his period of assignment. This award is not reflected on his DD Form 214. 2. The applicant states he was twice on planes that stopped in Vietnam. Being briefly present in Vietnam enroute to another location is not "direct support" of operations in Vietnam constituting a basis for award of the VSM. It is noted that the record shows his unit was awarded the MUC for its efforts in constructing a major road in Thailand. It appears that this was the unit's primary purpose during the applicant service with the unit. The evidence does not show he met the criterial for award of the VSM. 3. The evidence of record confirms the applicant received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his active duty service. In addition, his OMPF is void of any derogatory information or a unit commander's disqualification that would have precluded him from being recommended for or awarded the first award of the AGCM. It appears the applicant meets the regulatory criteria for award of the AGCM (1st Award) for the period 15 November 1963 to 14 November 1966. This award is not reflected on his DD Form 214. 4. The evidence indicates there is an error in item 24c on his DD Form 214. There is no evidence showing the applicant served in USAREUR. All available records show he served in USARPAC–Thailand for the period shown in item 24c. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001120 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001120 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2