BOARD DATE: 25 July 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016349 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 BOARD DATE: 25 July 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016349 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. BOARD DATE: 25 July 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016349 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 reconsideration of the Board’s denial decision by revoking, rescinding or overturning General Orders Number 3895 dated 17 June 1966. As a new request, he states General Orders Number 2637 dated 1 May 1966 should be recognized, approved or reissued as the official order. He also requests the appropriate citation and award narrative be issued to him. 2. The applicant states in a 17-page personal statement that he suffered an injustice when his Bronze Star Medal order was revoked on 17 June 1966. In reviewing the Board's initial decision, it appears it did not consider it an injustice but rather the Board presumed administrative regularity. a. He tried to show in his first application and now that certain things just do not add up to justify revoking his Bronze Star Medal. He requests the revocation order be viewed as not legitimate or an "honest" order. He asks the Board to question its presumption of administrative regularity by asking, "Is it really true in all cases?" He hopes he can overcome this policy. b. Looking at the date of the award order and then the date of the revocation order, he asks the Board to consider, "Was some motive behind the issuance of the order that was not proper?" He states it was improper and he will show the Board his reasoning and rationale. (1) He articulates the history of how he became a Finance Officer without training. It was during late 1964 into 1965 when the 101st Airborne Division located at Fort Campbell, Kentucky began to organize a separate brigade to deploy to the Republic of Vietnam. It meant establishing staff and administrative offices to support the brigade during its deployment. He volunteered to go and his branch orders were changed from Infantry to Finance. He was a Regular Army officer. (2) From Kentucky, he pulled together the staff for a brigade finance office and he also got new personnel once he arrived in Vietnam. In country, his office did not get the right equipment for them to properly issue checks and process payroll. He did not have the mechanical equipment to write, sign or process checks for the Soldiers and their allotments for their families. The office manually processed pay. He went to the Comptroller's Officer in Saigon and received cash and then stored it in a walk-in connex container. He questioned the physical security of the connex container to hold cash. (3) His mission was to process and pay Soldiers of the separate brigade. No one from higher headquarters provided him or the office assistance or guidance. He compares his operation to other "more" established finance offices and states he knows many of the other Finance Officers received the Bronze Star Medal. c. From his review of the record of proceedings, the Board did not review all the evidence and arguments he presented in his first application. He states the Board has his first application with his evidence and asks the new Board to review it. [The first record of proceedings and all its supporting evidence is being considered by this new Board.] (1) The Board should carefully look at his initial officer evaluation report completed in Vietnam by his rating officials for the period 27 May 1965 through 26 January 1966. He was rated by the brigade S1 (major) and brigade deputy commander (lieutenant colonel). In January 1966, a new brigade S-1 was assigned. He asked the U. S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and the previous Board for copies of an OER that should have ended with his departure from Vietnam on 26 May 1966. He states, "Does it even exist so that the Army Board and I can examine it to compare it to the ratings of my initial OER?" This is a very important matter to him. (2) He and the new brigade S1 did not have a good relationship. He acknowledges they had conflicts with each other which were major disagreements. The new officer disrupted the office which the applicant thought had been functioning quite well under the circumstances. (3) He never had detailed meetings with his new rating officials nor did he have exit interviews with his rating officials when he departed Vietnam. He surmises, "I have no direct knowledge if I had been 'degraded' or 'blind-sided' by the new AG [Adjutant General]." He has his suspicions. (4) He submits to the Board the "distinct possibility that, in [his] opinion, someone [the new S1] had the revocation action done and maybe in an unauthorized manner." d. The board pointed out the USARV Form 157 (Recommendation for Decoration for Valor or Merit) was incomplete because it was not signed, dated or endorsed. He opines to have an order issued, the award approval authority would have had a completed USARV Form 157 with a narrative description of the contributions made by him. After many years of being stored in his home, he found his personal copies of Army documents normally maintained in official records. e. He also opines his award recommendation and initial Vietnam officer evaluation report are very similar in word and text. His surmises his rating officials were the same people who also prepared his Bronze Star Medal award recommendation. It was his brigade commander's intent that he receive this medal because he knew the difficulties encountered in the Finance Office. f. He questions the timing of the first award order [1 May 1966], his departure date [26 May 1966] and then its revocation [17 June 1966]. These actions occurred during a short period of time. He further questions why he never personally received these two orders while he was still on active duty? [He did find the award order in his boxes of personal documents stored in his home.] g. He received the instructions for applying for an award [under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130]. However, it has been nearly 50 years since his service in Vietnam. How can he be expected to prepare a new award recommendation with supporting evidence when he has not been in contact with the people he served with in so many years? 3. The applicant provides – * Army Docket Number AR20150009830 with its enclosures * Copy of his original application letter, dated 2 June 2015, with his DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552) and his list of attachments CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20150009830 on 12 May 2016. 2. The ABCMR is not a records custodian, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) maintains control of military personnel records, now referred to as the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). The AMHRRs held at NPRC are administrative records containing information about the subject's military service history. To obtain a copy of the personnel portion of the AMHRR, applicants may mail or fax signed and dated request to NPRC. Applicants should be sure to use the address specified by the instructions on the Standard Form (SF) 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records). Requests may be faxed to (314) 801-9195 or mailed to the following address: National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records, 1 Archives Drive, St. Louis, MO 63138. As the ABCMR is not a records custodian, the applicant's request for documents will not be further addressed in this record of proceedings. 3. On 2 June 1961 the applicant was appointed a Reserve commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant. 4. On 2 January 1962 he entered active duty. 5. He served in Vietnam from 8 July 1965 to 31 May 1966 as a Finance Officer. He was assigned to 101st Administrative Company Support Battalion, 1st Brigade, 101sst Airborne Division. 6. Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell, General Orders Number 112, awarded him the Army Commendation Medal for his meritorious service from March 1964 to May 1965. 7. Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam, General Orders Number 2637, dated 1 May 1966, awarded him the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam during the period May 1965 to May 1966. 8. Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam, General Orders Number 3895, dated 17 June 1966, revoked his award of the Bronze Star Medal. 9. On 31 August 1970, he was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement). His DD Form 214 does not show award of the Bronze Star Medal. 10. After serving in the USAR in troop program units, he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of lieutenant colonel on 12 May 1999. 11. The previous Board considered the following evidence provided by the applicant: a. self-authored letters to HRC requesting revocation of Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam, General Orders Number 3895, dated 17 June 1966, and supporting documentation justifying this revocation; and b. two HRC letters from the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, dated 23 February 2015 and 8 April 2015, which show he was advised he was not entitled to the Bronze Star Medal and of his right to pursue this award through the ABCMR or a member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. 12. On 12 May 2016 the Board denied his request and referred him to the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552. The Board advised him it was his right to purse the Bronze Star Medal under this statute. The Board assumed administrative regularity in that an appropriate authority directed the revocation of his previously awarded Bronze Star Medal. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) the ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. In appropriate cases, it directs or recommends correction of military records to remove an error or injustice. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body 2. U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) governed the military awards program in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. It stated the Bronze Star Medal was awarded for heroism or for meritorious achievement or service which did not involve aerial flight but which was performed in connection with military operations against an armed enemy including combat, support, and supply operations. a. To qualify, the achievement of the individual should have been of such magnitude that it clearly placed him above his peers. Exceptional performance of duty is not in itself an adequate basis for an award. b. The approval authority for award of the Bronze Star Medal was generally delegated no lower than brigadier generals in command of separate brigades. However, the HRC Awards Branch shows authority for award of the Bronze Star Medal for service had been delegated to colonels in command of the U.S. Army Support Commands located at Saigon, Cam Ranh Bay, and Qui Nhon and in command of separate engineer brigades in Vietnam assigned to the U.S. Army Engineer Troops (Provisional). 3. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. It states 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. 4. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130, provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion. Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award. a. The request, with a DA Form 638, must be submitted through a Member of Congress to the Secretary of the Army at the following agency: Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ATTN: AHRC-PDP-A, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122. b. The applicant's unit must be clearly identified along with the period of assignment and the award being recommended. A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638. c. Requests for consideration of awards should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents. Corroborating evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders and fellow Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rest with the requestor. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant articulated that he believes the revocation of the Bronze Star Medal shortly after it was awarded to him was accomplished under questionable means. He asserts his brigade commander's intent was to award him the Bronze Star Medal. Halfway through his tour in Vietnam, his initial rater left. He freely admits he and the new officer did not get along and he surmises this individual or possibly another individual with access to an awards authority intentionally revoked his Bronze Star Medal award orders. Based on his sole interpretation and personal judgment, he states he suffered an injustice in Vietnam and continues to suffer some 50 years later. 2. The applicant has been told on three separate occasions by appropriate authority that he has the right to seek relief under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. To date, there is no record he applied through his member of Congress. He opines it is a very difficult task to prepare an award recommendation packet as he has not been in touch with the personnel he served with in 50 years. He further opines this is an unreasonable task and the Board should act independently and revoke General Orders Number 3895 that revoked his Bronze Star Medal. He further stated the Board should authorize an appropriate Bronze Star Medal citation and award certificate. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016349 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160016349 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2