IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004642 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004642 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 January 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004642 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) to show he received a Bronze Star Medal (BSM), three Air Medals (AMs) with "V" Device, and an Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM.) 2. The applicant states: a. He has tried for over 6 years to have the AMs with "V" Device added to his records. He was awarded three AMs with "V" Device but never received orders. b. He physically has the medals, pictures of the general officer pinning them on him, articles from the Army sent to his home town newspaper, and he provides a declassified message on Operation Dewey Canyon. c. When he came back from Vietnam and got out of the Army, he was not interested in his military career, only with getting on with his life. Now that he is retired, and orders are required for all medals, he needs help getting the orders and having the medals listed on his DD Form 214. 3. The applicant provides: * General Orders Number 10804, issued by Headquarters 101st Airborne Division, dated 15 December 1968 * "Military Award Table" prepared and provided by the applicant * letter from the commanding officer, issued by Headquarters, Marine Air Control Group 18, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing, Fleet Marine Force (FMF), Pacific, San Francisco, CA, dated 15 April 1969, subject: Command Chronology for the period 1- 31 March 1969 * message, dated 120724Z February 1969 * DA Forms 759 (Individual Flight Record – Army Aviator) for the period June 1968 to April 1969 * DD Form 214 * copies of photographs of people in military uniform, in civilian clothes, and of a helicopter * letters to the applicant from U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Military Awards Branch, dated 17 November 2009 and 13 January 2015 * letter from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), dated 9 November 2015 * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 17 November 2009 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. On 5 September 1967 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. After initial training and advanced initial training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 64O (CH-47 Helicopter Repairman.) 3. The applicant’s record contains a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), which lists the following information: a. Item 31 (Foreign Service) – he was assigned in Vietnam from 28 April 1968 through 26 April 1969. b. Item 38 (Record of Assignments) – he was assigned to the following units: * 200th Assault Helicopter Company, U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) – Vietnam from 10 May to 31 July 1968 * Company A, 159th Aviation (Assault Support) Battalion, USARPAC from 1 August 1968 through 21 April 1969 c Item 41 (Awards and Decorations): * National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) * Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (VCM) with Device (1960) * Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) * Aircraft Crewmember Badge * AM * BSM * ARCOM with "V" Device * two overseas service bars * AGCM * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) 8. On 4 June 1970, the applicant was honorably released from active duty. He completed 2 years, 9 months, and 7 days of total active duty service. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized the: * NDSM * VSM with four bronze service stars * VCM with Device (1960) * Two Overseas Service Bars * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * ARCOM with “V” Device * Aircraft Crewman Badge * AM 9. The evidence of record does not contain orders for three AMs with "V" Device. He provided the first page of General Orders Number 10804, issued by Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division, dated 15 December 1968, awarding him the Air Medal for action from 28 June to 2 August 1968. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded one AM. 10. A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System maintained by the HRC Command Military Awards Branch, an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973, failed to reveal orders for any AMs with “V” Device pertaining the applicant. 11. The applicant's DD Form 215 issued by HRC, Military Awards Branch, dated 17 November 2009, shows the following corrections were made to the applicant’s DD Form 214: a. deleted the ARCOM with "V" Device and b. added the following awards: * BSM * ARCOM with one oak leaf cluster with "V" Device * AGCM * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation 12. The applicant provides the following documents: a. multiple photographs that appear to show Soldiers receiving awards, b. DA Forms 759 which are incomplete, illegible, and unsigned, c. a letter from HRC denying his request to add additional AMs with "V" Device to his DD Form 214, d. a letter from NARA denying his request for additional AMs, e. a local newspaper article stating he was awarded the AM for heroism in action, while engaged in aerial flight in connection with ground operations against hostile forces in Vietnam, and f. a narrative summary for Operation Dewey Canyon which does not identify the applicant by name, nor does it show he was awarded any AMs with "V" Device. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. The AM is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service while participating in aerial flight. This award is primarily intended for personnel on flying status but may also be awarded to those personnel whose combat duties require them to fly; for example, personnel in the attack elements of units involved in air-land assaults against an armed enemy. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. 2. U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided guidelines for award of the AM. It established that passenger personnel who did not participate in an air assault were not eligible for the award based upon sustained operations. It defined terms and provided guidelines for the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours. a. Twenty-five Category I missions (air assault and equally dangerous missions) and accrual of a minimum of 25 hours of flight time while engaged in Category I missions was the standard established for which sustained operations were deemed worthy of recognition by an award of the AM. However, the regulation was clear that these guidelines were considered only a departure point. b. To be recommended for award of the AM, an individual must have completed a minimum of 25 category I missions, 50 category II missions, or 100 category III missions. Because various types of missions would have been completed in accumulating flight time toward award of an AM for sustained operations, different computations would have had to be made to combine category I, II, and III flight times and adjust it to a common denominator. c. Appendix IV required that recommendations for award of the AM for crewmembers or non-crewmembers on flying status would be submitted on USARV Form 157-R. The recommendation for award must also have stated that the individual "met the required number of missions and hours for award of the Air Medal"; that "the individual has not caused, either directly or indirectly, an aircraft abort, late take-off, accident or incident"; and that the "individual's accomplishments and service throughout the period have reflected meritorious performance, with no instance of nonprofessionalism, mediocrity, or failure to display an aggressive spirit." DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he received a BSM, three AMs with "V" Device, and an AGCM. 2. In 2009, the applicant applied to HRC for a correction of his record to show he was awarded three AMs with "V" Device. On 17 November 2009, HRC denied his request based on the fact that the historical award records for the Vietnam era, and his official military personnel file, did not contain general orders awarding him three AMs with "V" Device. 3. It appears on the same day HRC, after reviewing the applicant’s record, issued him a DD Form 215 correcting his record by adding the BSM, ARCOM with one oak leaf cluster with "V" Device, AGCM, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation. 4. The applicant provides copies of DA Forms 759, which would normally list the amount of flight missions completed, the category type, and the amount of hours flown to verify the authorization of the AM; however, the documents are improperly completed, illegible, and have no verifying signatures. 5. The applicant provides photocopies of what appears to be Soldiers receiving awards; however, it is not clear what award(s) were presented or to whom the orders were presented. In addition pursuant to Army regulation, orders are required for all personal decorations including AMs. 6. The narrative summary of Operation Dewey Canyon does not list the applicant’s name, nor does it show that he was awarded any awards. 7. The evidence of record shows no general orders for the award of three AMs with "V" Device. The available records show the applicant was awarded only one AM, which is already listed on his DD Form 214. 8. The applicant's DD Form 215 shows his record has already been corrected by HRC adding the BSM and the AGCM. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004642 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004642 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2