BOARD DATE: 25 July 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160017781 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: AR20160017781 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: AR20160017781 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, through a Member of Congress, requests reconsideration of his earlier request to correct his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show the Air Medal. 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. He took a flight physical within the first two months of arriving at the 604th Transportation Company in Vietnam. He would have been unable to become a Crew Chief if he had not been placed on flight status after passing his physical. b. He did not take the time to ensure the administrative staff with his unit were accurately recording his status or if the information had been misplaced. c. His flying time included being a Crew Chief upon receipt of a new helicopter, UH-1H 68-16604, through the first 100-hour inspection. d. He received 4 letters of support from fellow crewmembers, including a pilot with whom he flew many recovery and day-to-day missions. e. His meritorious service as illustrated by his receipt of a Bronze Star Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Air Crewman Badge shows his performance of such service and flight hours. 3. The applicant provides a 4-page self-authored statement. 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 AR20150000614 on 20 August 2015. 2. The applicant submitted a new argument with regard to award of the Air Medal which was not previously considered by the Board. The new argument warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 October 1968. He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67Y (Attack Helicopter (AH)-1 Repairman). On 12 February 1970, he was awarded MOS 67N (Utility Helicopter (UH)-1 Repairman). 4. Evidence shows he served in the Republic of Vietnam for the period 25 May 1969 through 27 May 1970. Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was assigned to the 604th Transportation Company from 13 June 1969 through 27 May 1970, performing the principal duties of Helicopter Repairman, Helicopter Repairman Helper and Senior Helicopter Repairman throughout his Vietnam service. 5. His records do not contain orders awarding him the Air Medal. Further, his records are void of any DA Forms 759 (Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate – Army) or 759-1 (Individual Flight Record and Flight Certificate – Army, Aircraft Closeout Summary), or any flight logs which could be used to establish the number of flight hours and missions he was credited with during his service in the Republic of Vietnam. 6. On 27 May 1970, he was honorably released from active duty. He completed 1 year, 7 months and 7 days total active service with 1 year and 3 days foreign service. His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded or authorized the: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) * Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) 7. On 31 March 1987, his DD Form 214 was corrected by DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to add the following awards: * Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device * Army Commendation Medal * Army Good Conduct Medal * Meritorious Unit "Emblem" * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation 8. On 28 September 2015, his DD Form 215 issued 31 March 1987 was voided. His DD Form 214 was corrected by DD Form 215 to show award of the: * Basic Aviation Badge * Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars * Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device * Army Commendation Medal * Army Good Conduct Medal * Meritorious Unit Commendation * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation 9. A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS), an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders for the Air Medal pertaining to the applicant. 10. The applicant provided a 4-page self-authored statement in which he claims, in effect: a. It was a requirement that he be given a flight physical before he could be placed on flight status and start crewing UH-1H 66-16092, in August 1969. His first sergeant and platoon sergeant would not have allowed him the opportunity to crew the helicopter if he had not passed his physical to be eligible to be placed on flight status. b. He does not know why the DA Forms 759 and 759-1 were not placed in his personnel file after he passed his physical and assigned as a crew chief. It was Vietnam and he did not have access to his personnel file while serving in combat. He assumed it had all been taken care of while he was in country. He was also the crew chief on a helicopter from August 1969 to May 1970 when he left Vietnam and therefore, he had no reason to believe there would ever be a question regarding whether he had been in the helicopter for any number of flight hours. The logbooks would have the names of those personnel, including his, who were on each flight. At age 19, he was more interested in surviving the war and returning to civilian life than what documentation should or shouldn’t be in his file. Had he not survived, it would not have made any difference what was in his file. c. When his company received a new helicopter, he was assigned as the crew chief on the unit. He crewed the helicopter through its first major 100 hour inspection. That alone constitutes 100 hours flying time before the first inspection was due. This fact is verified by Warrant Officer G_____z, who was the aircraft commander on the helicopter. During his service in Vietnam, he was involved in at least 14 helicopter recoveries. Each involved flying to and being inserted on the ground to rig and recover the helicopters. All of the recoveries except one required many hours flying time through hostile territory to the recovery site and return to base. In addition, he was involved in many resupply missions in the Central Highlands where they ferried personnel to check on work being completed or actions taken at firebases and camps in the Central Highlands or II Corps area of operations. He cannot recall exactly how many hour were flown but there were many more combined hours than the 25 hours of Category I; 50 hours of Category II; and 100 hours of Category III missions. d. He provided letters in lieu of the documentation that did not make it into his personnel file and claims this information as an independent verification of his flight hours and status as a crew chief while serving in the Central Highlands. In addition, he provided photographs and newspaper clippings which state he was a recovery team member and helicopter crew chief. e. His Bronze Star Medal for heroism states he was awarded the medal during an extremely hazardous recovery mission on 10 April 1970, and he received an Army Commendation Medal which notes he distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious service in support of military operations in the Republic of Vietnam. He claims both medals were awarded for a crew member who was on flying status and through the nature of the wording of his awards and badges, he believes he meets the criteria to receive award of the Air Medal. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Air Medal 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 an announcement in orders are required. 2. U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided guidelines for award of the Air Medal. It stated 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. 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 Air Medal. However, the regulation was clear that these guidelines were considered only a departure point. a. Combat missions were divided into three categories. A category I mission was defined as a mission performed in an assault role in which a hostile force was engaged and was characterized by the delivery of ordnance against the hostile force or delivery of friendly troops or supplies into the immediate combat operations area. A category II mission was characterized by support rendered a friendly force immediately before, during, or immediately following a combat operation. A category III mission was characterized by support of friendly forces not connected with an immediate combat operation, but which must have been accomplished at altitudes which made the aircraft at times vulnerable to small arms fire or under hazardous weather or terrain conditions. b. To be recommended for award of the Air Medal, an individual must have completed a minimum of 25 category I missions, 50 category II missions, or 100 category III missions. Since various types of missions would have been completed in accumulating flight time toward award of an Air Medal 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. 3. USARV Regulation 672-1 further provided guidelines for award of the Air Medal for sustained operations. Appendix IV required that recommendations for award of the Air Medal 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 non-professionalism, mediocrity, or failure to display an aggressive spirit." DISCUSSION: 1. The single most important document used to determine an individual's eligibility for award of the Air Medal during the Vietnam Conflict was the DA Form 759-1. The DA Form 759-1 is a record of flight time, by flying duty (combat, simulation, training, etc.) and flight condition, for each aircraft (and/or flight simulator for flight surgeons) in which an individual performs duties. Without the flight record, it is very difficult to establish a member's eligibility for the Air Medal. 2. The fact that other members of the command may have received the Air Medal does not entitle the applicant to the same; the Air Medal is an individual award. Each Soldier may meet the criteria at a different time. Had the applicant met the criteria at any time, it is reasonable to presume that orders would have been issued to him. A review of his Military Personnel Records Jacket and ADCARS, failed to reveal a recommendation or orders for award of the Air Medal pertaining to the applicant. 3. The applicant's letters, photographs and subsequent award of the Aircraft Crewman Badge are evidence that he performed flight duty as a crewman; however, they do not substantiate that he completed the requisite number of flight hours or that he was recommended for award of the Air Medal. 4. The statements submitted by former members of the unit are noted, but they are based on memory and are not specific in nature. It was not only 25 missions: the criteria was that 25 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 Air Medal. Without a record of hours flown and missions completed, it is virtually impossible for any member of the command to recall if someone met this criteria decades after the fact. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160017781 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160017781 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2