ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 November 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016290 APPLICANT REQUESTS: General Orders (GO) Number 4145, awarding his deceased Father, a former service member (FSM), the Bronze Star Medal with V Device be amended as shown below. He also requests a personal appearance before the Board. * dates of action as 5-7 November 1966 vice 30 June-2 July 1966 * location of action as Near the Village of Xa Loc Ninh vice Loc Ninh Province APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * GO Number 4145, dated 30 December 1966 * GO Number 1298, awarding him the Purple Heart * Multiple separation documents * Multiple denials from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) * FSM Death Certificate (provided via a previous separate application) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states that he was worked with HRC to award his deceased father a Silver Star for the period 30 June 1966 to 2 July 1966. He discovered that the Bronze Star Medal with V Device had been awarded for this action. He provided HRC with evidence in the form of eye witness testimony, Army and Air Force reports, and maps demonstrating a conflict with the dates listed on his father’s orders. HRC could not confirm the dates and asked for the original recommendation for this award. The National Archives did not retain such documents through 1969 once the award had been made. The family then provided HRC with five peer level Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) Bronze Star Medal with V Device from the same unit (2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry), for the same dates (30 June to 2 July 1966) provided by the 1st Division Museum in Chicago. Five peer NCO narratives were virtually the same, and materially different from his father's, demonstrating two (2) unfortunate, yet legitimately correctable 50 plus years typos. HRC recommended the ABCMR path to correct. 3. Review of the FSM’s service records shows: a. Having had prior service in the Army National Guard, the FSM enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 December 1955. b. He served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments including three tours in Germany and three tours in Vietnam c. One of his tours in Vietnam was from May 1966 to May 1967. He was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 18th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division. d. He was wounded in action on 30 June 1966. GO Number 1298, issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division, on 18 July 1966, awarded him the Purple Heart. e. GO Number 4145, issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division, on 30 December 1966 awarded him the Bronze Star Medal with V Device for heroism from 30 June 1966 to 2 July 1966 in connection with military operations against a hostile force. The award reads: During this period, [FSM] was participating in a search and destroy operation in Loc Ninh Province. His unit had moved through the dense jungle on a sweep and was establishing a defensive perimeter for the night when it was engaged by a large Viet Cong force. Although the area was raked with the insurgents’ small arms, grenades, rocket, and mortar fire, [FSM] demonstrated outstanding valor and exemplary courage while inflicting heavy casualties upon the Viet Cong. With compete disregard for his personal safety, he continually exposed himself to the intense hostile fire in order to place his highly effective fire upon insurgent’s positions. Through three days of heavy fighting, he left his shelter numerous times in order to distribute needed ammunition to the men in his charge and to direct fire. When his unit sustained casualties he reacted immediately and supervised the extraction of the wounded and the recovery of the equipment. The [FSM] only concern during the engagement was the successful completion of the mission. The rapidity and aggressiveness with which he gave orders to his men was in large measure responsible for his company’s outstanding victory. f. After a distinguished career, the FSM retired on 31 December 1979 and placed on the retired list in the rank of commander sergeant major on 1 January 1980. His retirement DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows, among his awards, the Bronze Star Medal (3 Awards). g. In October 2009, the applicant requested his deceased father be awarded two awards of the Silver Star, three additional awards of the Purple Heart, and two additional awards of the Bronze Star Medal. h. On 1 June 2010, the Board granted partial relief by amending his DD Form 214 to show the V Device with the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, and several other service awards. The Board found no evidence of and denied three additional awards of the Purple Heart. i. Also related to his 2009 request, the staff of the ABCMR dispatched a letter to the applicant advising him that there was no evidence his late father had been recommended or awarded two awards of the Silver Star or three additional awards of the Bronze Star Medal. He was advised to submit his application to HRC in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. j. In May 2014, by letter to the applicant’s Member of Congress, the Chief of the Awards Branch stated HRC was unable to the recommendation for award of the Silver Star to the Army Decorations Board because there were regulatory requirements not met by the documentation provided (justification, signatures, names, etc.). k. In June 2015, by letter to the applicant’s Member of Congress, in response to the applicant’s desire to have the Silver Star with two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters awarded to his late father, the Chief of the Awards Branch stated: (1) In regard to the Silver Star award recommendation for the FSM’s actions on 21 March 1967, the recommendation was being processed in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. The Army Decorations Board will review this recommendation and determine whether to approve, downgrade or disapprove the award. (2) In regard to the request for the Silver Star (in lieu of the Bronze Star Medal with "V' Device) for his father's actions on 30 June 1966-2 July 1966, the Army Decorations Board reviewed the letter of justification, award citation for the Bronze Star Medal with “V" Device, unit reports regarding the incident and the sworn eyewitness statements and determined that the new information provided does not reflect a substantive change in the scope and magnitude of the FSM’s actions as reference in the citation for the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device. The new, substantive and material information must fundamentally change what is known of the Soldier's actions; simply elaborating on or providing new details of what was already known by his chain of command does not fulfill these requirements. Therefore, in order to properly assess the merits of this case, HRC required complete, legible copies of the original recommendation for award with the original award citation and narrative and sworn eyewitness affidavits; as well as a new letter of justification describing what new, substantive and material information is being presented that was not previously considered in the original recommendation and how this information justifies a request for reconsideration or upgrade. l. In March 2016, HRC responded to the applicant’s Member of Congress concerning his desire to amend the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device awarded to his late father, and advised that the action could not be processed because the applicant did not provide the necessary documentation required to assess the merits of his case. As stated in the previous responses (October 2015 and September 2015): (1) The award citation for the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device cannot be utilized as the sole source document as it is merely a summary of the original award narrative and does not provide insight into the specific write-up of the recommendation. (2) Furthermore, the Army Decorations Board cannot rely on eyewitness statements or excerpts from unofficial sources as a basis to change a vital element of the award; and insist that the original award recommendation, which is the primary source document, be provided. m. In July 2016, HRC responded to the applicant’s Member of Congress concerning his desire to amend the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device awarded to his late father, and advised that they were unable to accommodate the request as they had yet to receive a complete, legible copy of the original recommendation for award. While the eyewitness statements and excerpts from unofficial sources are helpful, they do not equate to the primary source documentation. The Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch stated: (1) He directed his staff to review and reassess all the documents provided in support of the applicant's request to ensure that all prescribed procedures have been met to fulfill this request. After a thorough review, they concluded that there is no material evidence that the 1st Infantry Division made a mistake when issuing the General Orders in 1966 that authorized the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device. Specifically, they found that it was common for the 1st Infantry Division to annotate an "effective date" for an award that processed for an extensive period of time after the date of the action. (2) Furthermore, the staff studied the "Combat Operations After Action Reports" from 1st Infantry Division for the period 2 June 1966 to 2 September 1966, previously provided the applicant. Based on their assessment, he concluded that the events described in the narrative published in GO Number 4145, dated 30 December 1966, announcing award of the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device are for actions that occurred during Operation El Paso II, outlined in the after action reports for 1st Infantry Division. However, without a copy of the original recommendation for award, the Army Decorations Board is unable to take his position in consideration as their findings do not support his request. 4. As for the personal appearance before the Board, applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 5. As for the award, by regulation (AR 600-8-22): a. The Army awards system recognizes and reacts to distinguishing acts of valor and bravery for Soldiers and it is the commander on the ground who is the steward to ensure proper recognition of our brave men and women. The Army has always been fully committed to the responsibility to properly recognize Soldiers for their valor, heroism, and meritorious service through a fair and consistent decorations and awards policy and process. b. Awards and decorations are very important to Soldiers. Equally important is the governance of the awards program. For the awards program to be credible to the Soldiers and the American people, it must ensure that it recognizes the right individuals for the proper award. It must ensure the integrity of the award is maintained through strict procedures and proper justifications. Finally it must place trust and confidence in commanders to execute the program. c. The criteria for military awards are set forth in statutes, executive orders and appropriate regulations. Established by law, the criteria for the three highest valor awards have not changed from what they were in past conflicts. Army regulation and policy establish the standards by which those awards are processed, approved, and presented. This consistency upholds the heritage of the awards and the legacy of the heroes who have earned them. d. The Army awards system recognizes and reacts to distinguishing acts of valor and bravery for Soldiers. The commander on the ground acts as a steward to ensure the proper recognition of our brave men and women. The Army has always been fully committed to the responsibility of properly recognizing Soldiers for their valor, heroism, and meritorious service through a fair and consistent decorations and awards policy and process. e. Army policy allows any Soldier to recommend another Soldier for an award. The Army's awards program relies on those with first-hand knowledge of a Soldier's heroic or valorous action to recommend the Soldier for the appropriate award. Award recommendations are sent up through the Soldier's chain of command to company, battalion, brigade, and division commanders. Commanders at every level of review can recommend approval or upgrade of the award based upon their authority. Commanders with authority to approve awards also have the authority to downgrade or disapprove awards based on their judgment, knowledge, and the criteria established for the award. Command involvement is critical for program success. f. For historical purposes, and to ensure the integrity of the award is maintained through strict procedures and proper justifications the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records. The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the documentary evidence provided by the applicant and found within the FSM’s military service record, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to show that the FSM was ever recommended and approved for the requested award during the dates and location of service. For that reason, the Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that an error or injustice was present which would warrant a correction to the record. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. a. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. b. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 3. AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides for the following awards: a. The Silver Star 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. b. The Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy, or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. c. The bronze “V” device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy and authorizes the bronze “V” device in conjunction with awards of the Army Commendation Medal, the Air Medal, and the Bronze Star Medal. d. Except for award recommendations submitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 1130), which is outlined below, each recommendation for an award of a military decoration must be entered administratively into military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored. An award recommendation will be considered to have been submitted into military channels when it has been signed by the initiating officer and endorsed by a higher official in the chain of command. However, pursuant to 10 USC 1130, a Member of Congress can request consideration of a proposal for the award or presentation of decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration), either for an individual or unit, that is not otherwise authorized to be presented or awarded due to limitations established by law or policy. Based upon such review, the Secretary of the Army will make a determination as to the merit of approving the award or presentation of the decoration and other determinations necessary to comply with congressional reporting requirements under 10 USC 1130. e. Title 10 USC 1130 allows the Service Secretary concerned to review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that is otherwise precluded from consideration by limitations established by law or policy. A request for an award (or upgrade of an award) under 10 USC 1130 requires submission of a completed DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award); a narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is requested; and sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates and related documents. Commanders, leaders, and fellow Soldiers who had personal (i.e., eyewitness) knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request are the best sources of corroborating evidence. Title 10 USC 1130 requires that a request of this nature be referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016290 8 1