ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 26 February 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170016879 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an upgrade of his Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device to the Silver Star. He also requests an appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Self-Authored Statement * DA Form 67-6 (U.S. Army Officer Efficiency Report) * Daily Staff Journal * Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) Form 127 (Recommendation for Decoration for Valor) * Bronze Star Medal Citation * General Orders Number 2163 * Two National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) responses * Two U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) responses * Letter to Congressional Representative from Colonel (COL) R__ (Retired) * Narrative Description by COL R__ FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. The decision by the Awards and Decorations Branch, HRC on 6 July 2017 was unjust. The decision to not consider the original narrative was unjust as was the decision to not consider the original MACV Form 127 as being in error because it was altered without the knowledge of the officers that signed it. It is unjust for the Army to say that they place primary importance when making awards on the commanders in the field and then disregard the recommendation and approval of three immediate commanders for the Silver Star and refuse to reconsider the downgrade of the award. It is unjust to make a decision on reconsideration without talking to COL R__. b. He was unaware he was recommended for the Silver Star until he received his records from the Army archives in 2014. In handwritten notes on the documents submitted, he states that his seven acts of valor in the narrative description were omitted from the “reasons” that accompanied the downgraded Bronze Star Medal. These included: * him taking command of a critical situation and physically relocating approximately 20 Soldiers who laid down a base fire * he exposed himself to both intense enemy fire and booby-traps in order to rescue wounded Soldiers in the midst of a grass fire ignited by the second booby-trap * he again exposed himself to fire * under extremely heavy stress and strain, he reacted in a cool and highly professional manner in thwarting the enemy assault * he pulled, dragged, and carried wounded to safety * he did so without the thought for his own safety or personal glory * his actions inspired the Vietnamese and countless lived were saved because of his sound judgement and coolness under fire * his actions were above and beyond the call of duty c. The original award recommendation was not processed appropriately, the original MACV document was changed without his [COL R_] knowledge or approval. He [COL R] had never been informed of the downgrade and the manner in which this recommendation was changed may have violated policy and was certainly inappropriate d. The original narrative description was not an element of the original award recommendation. It had been replaced by a modified, edited, and shortened narrative which accompanied the downgraded Bronze Star Medal. This edited version omitted seven of the nine acts of valor that were described in the original narrative descriptions. His immediate field commanders who had personal, firsthand knowledge of the events as they occurred recommended and approved the Silver Star. e. There was new, substantive and material information in the original narrative description that was discovered in 2015. The description that accompanied the downgraded Bronze Star Medal contained only two acts of valor. The original contained nine acts of valor. 2. The applicant provides: a. A self-authored statement justifying reconsideration for Silver Star recommendation. He states he received new information from the textual reference unit of NARA that he had never received during earlier inquiries. The unit provided him with a copy of the original narrative description included with the original recommendation for the Silver Star. Many acts of valor had been omitted from the information that he had received with the Bronze Star Medal award. He listed seven distinct acts of valor that were not mentioned. It is unknown when these omissions were made in the document signed by the general indicating a downgrade from Silver Star to Bronze Star Medal. The fact is the original narrative that included these seven acts was signed off by the three immediate field officers following the action on 20 March 1970. b. DA Form 67-6, which shows he received a favorable rating and notes he had been recommended for the Silver Star. c. A daily staff journal, dated 20 March 1971, which shows the patrol actions taken on 20 March 1971. d. MACV Form 127, with memorandum, which shows the applicant was recommended for the Silver Star and Brigadier General (BG) H__ approved award of the Bronze Star Medal for Valor in lieu of the Silver Star on 12 May 1971. e. Bronze Star Medal Citation for heroism in ground combat in the Republic of Vietnam on 20 March 1971. f. General Orders Number 2163, dated 17 May 1971, which show the applicant was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device for actions in Vietnam on 20 March 1971. g. A response from NARA, dated 2 January 2014, which shows they located material on the applicant reference his Bronze Star Medal and subsequent award. h. A response from HRC, dated 8 January 2014, which shows they were unable to verify his entitlement to the Silver Star. A recommendation was placed into official channels on or about 16 May 1971 and the recommendation was ultimately downgraded to an award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device. They did not possess the original recommendation or supporting documentation. i. A letter to his Congressional Representative from COL R__(the award recommender), which states, in pertinent part, that “an officer sitting behind a desk had the gall to unilaterally downgrade my recommendation, thereby substituting his judgment for mine and the other two officers in the combat zone, and to do so without notifying me or the other officers involved in the recommendation! Particularly onus is the fact that BG H__ , or a member of his staff, illegally changed my actual recommendation on the MACV Form 127 that I signed! That constituted altering an official document, rather than adding a separate endorsement explaining his action!” It also states “I already had almost four years of service in Vietnam, three years as an advisor. As I recollect, I interviewed the witnesses to [Applicant’s] actions during the battle, including the Vietnamese officers.” “It should be noted that during my year with the US battalion I submitted two officers for the Distinguished Service Cross (second only to the Medal of Honor) and one for the Silver Star. NONE were downgraded. I can affirm that none of the cited valorous actions exceeded those of [Applicant].” He is outraged and disappointed to find out that years after the fact his recommendation for a Silver Star for an officer was downgraded without his knowledge. j. A response from NARA, dated 6 September 2016, which shows they were able to find daily journals for his unit of assignment, which were forwarded for his use. k. A narrative description from COL R__, dated 14 March 2017, which summarizes the event that took place on 20 March 1971 in that the applicant was on an operation and an explosive device detonated that severely wounded four Soldiers. They came under intense enemy fire and another device detonated that killed the battalion commander and wounded seven other Soldiers. The applicant took command of a critical situation and exposed himself to intense enemy fire. l. A response from HRC, dated 6 July 2017, which shows they were unable to take action on his request because there was no new, substantive, and material information. By definition, original source documents which were elements of the original award recommendation cannot fulfill this requirement. Furthermore, after action reports and unit daily staff journals, while useful for providing historical context, cannot fulfill this requirement as the commanders in the field had personal, firsthand knowledge of the events as they occurred. By all appearances his original award recommendation was processed appropriately. They referred the applicant to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for further review. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows the following: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 November 1968. b. He was commissioned in the Army of the United States on 3 September 1969. c. He served in Vietnam from 29 April 1970 to 22 April 1971. d. General Orders Number 2163, dated 17 May 1971, awarded him the Bronze Star Medal (First Oak Leaf Cluster) with “V” Device for heroism in connection with military operations against a hostile force. e. He was honorably released from active duty on 26 April 1971. His DD Form 214, as amended by DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) shows he was awarded or authorized the: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars * Vietnam Campaign Medal * two overseas service bars * Bronze Star Medal with “V” Device and one bronze oak leaf cluster * Combat Infantryman Badge * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation 4. By regulation, the authority taking final action may award the decoration recommended, award a lesser decoration, or in the absence of an interim award, disapprove award of any decoration. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence to grant relief. All Board members denied an appearance; however, one Board member stated relief was warranted as the valor was worthy of the SS. The other two Board members determined the valor was recognized accordingly by the chain of command as a BSM “V.” BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : :X : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Not Applicable 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 (AR) 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, provides policy and procedures for awards and decorations. It states the authority taking final action may award the decoration recommendation, award a lesser decoration, or in the absence of an interim award, disapprove award of any decoration. 3. AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards), currently in effect, prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. Paragraph 3-1c states the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority. Awards for meritorious achievement or service will not be based upon the grade of the intended recipient. Rather, the award should reflect both the individual’s level of responsibility and his or her manner of performance. The degree to which an individual’s achievement or service enhanced the readiness or effectiveness of his or her organization will be the leading factor. b. The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction. The Silver Star is a valor award and will not be awarded for service. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170016879 4 1