IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006456 BOARD VOTE: ____x____ ___x___ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ____x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006456 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. upgrading his award of the Silver Star to the Distinguished Service Cross; and b. correcting his DD Form 214 for the period ending 30 September 1985 by deleting "NCO Professional Development Ribbon (3)" and "Silver Star" and adding "NCO Professional Development Ribbon (4)" and "Distinguished Service Cross." _____________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: 22 December 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160006456 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 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to add the French Parachutist Badge, Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), Silver Star (SS), and Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (NCOPDR) with Numeral “5” 2. In addition, he requests that the Board upgrade his SS to the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC). 3. The applicant states: a. The above-listed awards are not listed on his DD Form 214, since he did not receive the awards until after he retired. b. His chain of command in Vietnam submitted a request for him to receive the DSC in 2011; however, it was downgraded to the SS. His command believed that his actions in combat on 25 February 1967 warranted recognition at the level of the DSC. c. His original submission of the DSC in 2011 did not include clarifying eyewitness statements from two of the participants. The new eyewitness statements clearly demonstrate his personal risk and exposure to concentrated enemy fire at the time of the incident and subsequent leadership actions undertaken to consolidate the element and successfully evacuate the landing zone while under intense enemy fire. The statements from the battalion and brigade leadership at the time also support upgrade of the award based on their knowledge of the incident. 4. The applicant provides: * Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officer's Log entries, dated 25 February 1967 * General Orders Number 5979, issued by Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division, dated 27 May 1969 * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) * French Republic Military Certificate of Parachutist (notarized translation), dated 4 June 1984 * memorandum from the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, VA, subject: Foreign Award, dated 20 July 1984 * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 26 July 1985 * MSM (1st Oak Leaf Cluster) Certificate, dated 20 August 1985 * Permanent Orders (PO) Number 98-1, issued by 1st Special Operations Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC, dated 20 August 1985 * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part I) * DD Form 214 for the period ending on 30 September 1985 * DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 14 March 1986 * recommended DSC citation, dated 22 November 2011 * Letter from a Member of Congress, dated 17 February 2012 * reference maps of Binh Thuan Province/Song Mao, dated 8 June 2012 * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), completed 1 August 2012 * SS Citation * SS Certificate, dated 1 August 2012 * PO 214-17, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 1 August 2012 * DD Form 215, dated 17 August 2012 * PO 292-10, issued by HRC, dated 18 October 2012 * reconsideration request, dated 30 September 2015 * DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) * witness statements 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 requested a correction to his DD Form 214 to add the French Parachutist Badge, MSM (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), and SS to his DD Form 214. However, the applicant's DD 214 and subsequently issued DD Forms 215 already reflect these awards. Therefore, the Board will not discuss these corrections further in this Record of Proceedings. 3. On 10 September 1965, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and successfully completed basic and advanced individual training. He was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). In the course of his career he achieved the rank/grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8. 4. The applicant's personnel qualification record shows he completed multiple assignments in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). a. He was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 19 April 1966 to 20 April 1967 and he served with: (1) B Company, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 327th Infantry, 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, from 1 May 1966 to August 1966, and (2) Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 327th Infantry, 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, from August 1966 to 20 April 1967. 5. The applicant provided Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officers Log entries, dated 25 February 1967, in which the duty officer recorded significant enemy contact made by elements of 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry, that resulted in multiple casualties requiring medical evacuation. 6. He provides a DA Form 1059, dated 26 July 1985, showing he completed the U.S. Army Sergeants' Major Academy. 7. On 30 September 1985, the applicant was honorably retired and placed on the Retired List in the rank/grade of MSG/E-8. He completed 20 years and 21 days of creditable active service. 8. A DA Form 638, dated 29 November 2011, shows the applicant was recommended for the award of DSC by an eyewitness to the applicant's actions in combat on 25 February 1967. The recommendation was endorsed for approval by the surviving members of the applicant's chain of command at the time. The DA Form 638 shows the Army Decorations Board downgraded the recommended DSC to the SS. 9. PO 214-14, issued by the U.S. Army HRC, dated 1 August 2012, awarded the applicant the SS for gallantry in action on 25 February 1967. 10. The citation issued to the applicant reads as follows: For gallantry in action on 25 February 1967, during combat operations against an armed enemy of the United States, as Assistant Recon Team Leader of Hawk-14, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, while serving in the Republic of Vietnam. While on a mission to search for enemy troop concentrations, [the applicant’s] team came under heavy enemy small arms fire. After the team assembled and began to move to cover, [he] noticed a two-man sniper team operating against his men. In order to protect his team, without any regard for his personal safety, he exposed himself to enemy fire, threw a smoke grenade, called for suppressive fire and ran across open ground to engage and eliminate the sniper team. Upon returning to his team, he noticed an enemy machine gun crew that was engaging them. He again, without regard to his personal safety and at extreme personal risk, ran to the position and eliminated the threat with grenades and automatic rifle fire. After these actions, he successfully called in air strikes on the main enemy complex, which eliminated the threat. 11. In a letter, dated 17 August 2012, the Assistant Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, HRC, advised the applicant that the Army Decorations Board determined his actions did not meet the strict criteria for award of the DSC and recommended downgrade to the SS. The Commanding General, HRC, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, concurred with the board's recommendation and approved award of the SS. . 12. On 12 October 2016, in response to a letter the applicant had sent to the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, HRC, advised the applicant that there was no substantive and material evidence that warranted reconsideration of his case by the Army Decorations Board. The applicant was advised to apply to the ABCMR. 13. The applicant provided several sworn statements and letters, which state, in effect, that his actions on the day in question warrant the DSC. Although the log entries of that day may not have completely described his heroic actions (they seldom do in combat), his extraordinary conduct, heroism, valor, and personal courage are worthy of the DSC for his actions on 25 February 1967. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states: a. The DSC is awarded to a person, who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguishes 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. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. b. The SS 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. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the NCOPDR was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981. It is awarded to Active Army, Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers for successful completion of designated NCO professional development courses. Effective 30 March 1989, a service member will be awarded the NPDR with the numeral which identifies the highest level of the NCO Education System successfully completed as follows: * 1 = Bar Ribbon Device = Primary Level * 2 = Basic Level * 3 = Advanced Level * 4 = Senior Level DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his previously-awarded SS should be upgraded to the DSC because his command recommended him for the DSC and they believed that his actions in combat warranted recognition at the level of the DSC. 2. The applicant has provided several sworn statements and letters from other Soldiers who were either there at the time or knew of his character attesting to his gallantry and heroic actions in Vietnam on 25 February 1967. The citation for his award of the SS shows he twice exposed himself to enemy fire during the events in question. 3. The applicant was recommended for the DSC; however, the Army Decorations Board at HRC recommended a downgrade to the SS. The recommendation was approved by the Commanding General, HRC. In considering the recommendation of the Army Decorations Board, the Commanding General, HRC, had the option of disapproving the recommendation and forwarding the case to the Senior Army Decorations Board for further review. Following its review, the Senior Army Decorations Board would have provided a recommendation to the Secretary of the Army for a final decision. 4. The applicant appealed HRC's downgrade of the DSC to an SS and requested reconsideration of his request. His reconsideration request was denied based on the fact that there was no substantive or material information that fundamentally changed the overall understanding of the events that took place on 25 February 1967 that warranted an upgrade to a DSC. 5. Evidence of record shows the applicant completed the highest level of the NCO Education System. He met the criteria for award of the NCOPDR with Numeral “4.” //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160006456 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160006456 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2