IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 July 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190014720 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his record to show: * award of the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device * a personal hearing before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Congressional assistance request * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 1 September 1969 * Statement of Mr. E-, dated 22 June 2018 * Affidavit of Mr. E-, dated 6 February 2020 * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 10 February 2020 * Notarized letter * Photograph 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 (ABCMR) 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, in effect, he was to be awarded the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device. 3. A review of the applicant's official records shows the following: a. On 21 October 1966, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. b. DA Form 20 shows the applicant served in Vietnam from on or about 20 March 1967 to on or about 9 March 1968 with the 527th Personnel Service Company. c. On 1 September 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active duty. He completed 2 years, 10 months, and 11 days of net active service. He was awarded or authorized: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Vietnam Campaign Medal * Army Good Conduct Medal * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) * Two overseas bars d. The applicant's record is void of any recommendations for the Bronze Star Medal. Likewise, it is void of orders awarding him the Bronze Star Medal. e. A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS) maintained by the Military Awards Branch of HRC, which is an index of General Orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973, failed to reveal any orders awarding him the Bronze Star Medal for his period of service in Vietnam. f. On 5 July 1988, the applicant wrote a letter to the Honorable Mr. B- requesting assistance with an outstanding award for distinguished action in late January 1968 during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. He provided the proposed citation that stated: (1) The applicant attached to C Company, 84th Engineer Battalion and assigned to the 527th Personnel Company, did on 30 January 1968 and 31 January 1968, as a perimeter guard, on Ke Sein Mountain, Qui Nhon area, Republic of Vietnam, distinguish himself conspicuously by his heroic action under combat while engaged with an enemy of the United States. (2) The applicant, a perimeter guard, took action that prevented the enemy from taking the hill and adjacent petroleum, oil, and lubricant storage area. He was responsible for at least two enemy casualties. His quick action in alerting the rest of the guards at his site assisted them in preparing to meet the enemy and minimized casualties. (3) The applicant's alertness, heroism and courage without regard to his personal safety is in keeping with the highest tradition of the military and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the U.S. Army. g. He also provided the narrative that states; (1) The applicant attached to C Company, 84th Engineer Battalion and assigned to the 527th Personnel Company, did on 30 January 1968 and 31 January 1968, as a perimeter guard, on Ke Sein Mountain, Qui Nhon area, Republic of Vietnam, distinguish himself conspicuously by his heroic action while engaged with an enemy of the United States in combat. (2) As the positions Headquarters, Alpha, and Bravo were receiving hostile fire and attacks from the Vietcong, the applicant and Specialist C- proceeded to the bunkers where the rest of the guards in Charlie area were sleeping to awaken them. The men immediately set up a perimeter around Charlie Company site and bunker. Approximately 0300, 30 January 1968, this perimeter started receiving sniper fire, this continued until on or about 0630. A reactionary force of four additional men were sent to assist in holding the area. During the whole period Charlie position had no communications with the Headquarters, due to severing of the wire by explosion or enemy action. During the daylight hours of 30 January 1968, the men at all four sites, built up their perimeter bunkers, and defense positions preparing for further contact with the enemy. At dusk, the bunkers were manned and at 0100, 31 January 1968, Charlie Company started receiving sniper fire. At 0200, a large force of fire was received from four different directions. Enemy strength was estimated at 25 to 30. Personnel in Charlie perimeter were pinned down in their bunkers. (3) At about 0315 a flare ship and gun ship arrived over the area. The men received word from the gunship pilot to move out of their small bunkers and to get into the large bunker to allow the ships to come in closer to engage and clear out the enemy from the area. During the movement, the applicant provided covering fire and killed two of the enemy. The enemy was trying to get in closer to the perimeter, and destroy Charlie position. At approximately 0700, it seemed like the gunships had cleared the area and the men started moving around. Then all of a sudden sniper fire was received, the applicant and other members of the guard organized a reaction force to overrun the hill from which they were receiving sniper fire. This action succeeded in clearing the snipers from the hill, and preventing the enemy from inflicting further casualties on U.S. personnel. (4) Because of the applicant's quick action the complete guard unit was alerted and prevented the enemy from inflicting heavy casualties on friendly forces and denied the enemy possession of the hill, plus a petroleum, oil, and lubricant storage area which was in their vicinity. (5) The applicant's alertness, heroism and courage without regard to his personal safety is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military and reflects credit upon himself, his unit, and the U.S. Army. h. On 12 July 1988, the office of the Honorable Mr. B- made an inquiry on behalf of the applicant pertaining to award of the Bronze Star Medal. i. On 3 August 1988, a U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center official replied to the Honorable Mr. B- and stated decorations such as the Bronze Star Medal must be announced by the publication of General Orders. A review of the applicant's records failed to identify such orders. General orders for the Vietnam era were maintained at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency (Provisional) (now the U.S. Army Human Resources Command). His request was being forwarded there. j. On 6 October 1988, a U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency (Provisional) official replied to the Honorable Mr. B- and stated in pertinent part, they carefully reviewed the applicant's official military personnel file and could not locate any General Orders awarding him the Bronze Star Medal for the actions described in the proposed citation he provided. Therefore, they had to search historical records. The applicant should provide the original copy of the citation and narrative and they should bear the name(s) of the recommending officials and date(s) the documents were prepared. k. On 25 October 1988, the Honorable Mr. B- sent a follow up letter inquiring about any further actions being taken pertaining to his constituent's request. l. On 1 November 1988, the applicant provided a letter to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency providing a copy of the citation given to him when he departed Vietnam. He could not locate the commanding officer's name. m. On 9 November 1988, the Honorable Mr. B- sent another follow up letter inquiring about any further actions being taken pertaining to his constituent's request. n. On 15 December 1988, a U.S. Total Army Personnel Agency official with the Military Awards Branch responded to the Honorable Mr. B- and stated: (1) In considering belated claims for the award of military decorations based upon Vietnam actions, our authority to consider awards is limited to rare cases that meet both of the following requirements. First, there must be conclusive evidence that a recommendation for an award was formally entered into military channels by October 1975. Secondly, there must be evidence that the written recommendation, once submitted, was either lost or otherwise not properly processed to a final decision. These restrictive standards are necessary to ensure that the Army does not inadvertently approve a "lost" recommendation that was previously considered and disapproved by a field commander many years ago. (2) In the applicant's case, there is no evidence available to show that he was formally recommended for the Bronze Star Medal. The documents that he provided were not typed in the standard award recommendation format that was used in Vietnam, and the documents were not signed or addressed to any higher headquarters for approval. Nevertheless, in an effort to determine if an award of the Bronze Star Medal (or Army Commendation Medal) was approved, we conducted a page-by-page search of the General Orders published by the 1st Logistical Command in 1968. There was no indication in these files that the applicant had been recommended for or awarded the Bronze Star Medal or the Army Commendation Medal for the incident described in the citation he sent. Accordingly, there is no authority whereby we may award him the Bronze Star Medal or the Army Commendation Medal at this late date. 4. The applicant provides: a. Congressional assistance request submitted to the office of the Honorable Mr. B- for assistance with the award of the Bronze Star Medal. b. Statement of Mr. E- that states: (1) On the morning of 22 January 1968 he and approximately 30 other men were selected to serve as guards on what everybody referred to as "the mountain." Their tour of duty was 10 days. As he recalls, these men were selected from several units located at Camp Granite in Qui Nhon, South Vietnam. He believes that two men were from each company except the military police company who were needed to help secure Camp Granite and Qui Nhon. (2) They were flown to "the mountain" by a chinook helicopter. One they arrived, all guards were assigned to a specific sector of Alfa, Bravo, or Charlie section. They had to hike to the "Charlie" sector where he was assigned as the squad leader. He was somewhat upset that they were expected to fend off the enemies with only seven men who had not carried or fired a weapon since their basic training. (3) After looking over his squad he decided that the applicant would be his best choice as second in command. He accepted the position without hesitation and from that moment on the applicant was his only hope of surviving and helped him become a little more at ease. (4) He had read the proposed citation, and found every allegation to be completely true and factually accurate because he was there with the applicant during the Tet battles and his actions were absolutely heroic and he personally believe the applicant's actions saved the entire squad. In fact, they were the only squad that did not suffer any casualties which seemed to be an impossibility. He truly believes the applicant should be awarded a Silver Star. c. Affidavit authored by Mr. E- that states, in pertinent part: (1) It should be noted that he remembers being interviewed by an officer just a few days after they returned to Camp Granite. On 2 February 1968. Every member of his squad fought with all they had against an overwhelming enemy force for three very long and agonizing days and were it not for the selfless and heroic actions of the applicant during the battle, many of them would not have survived. He would cite a few examples of the applicant's actions that displayed both merit and valor, that in his opinion, contributed to the ultimate survival of his entire squad. At this point it should be noted that, their squad suffered absolutely no casualties or deaths during the entire three day battle. However, the other Soldiers who were located at the Alpha and Bravo sector were not as fortunate and they were decimated the first day of the battle. (2) When they first arrived on the "Mountain" to begin their 10 day tour of security duty, the applicant assisted him in setting up Charlie sector, including the construction of a machine gun bunker, digging fox holes, laying sand bags and stretching barbed wire around their perimeter. Further, the applicant also voluntarily assisted him in setting up trip flares and booby traps utilizing hand grenades. They also checked the wires to the field phone on a daily basis. The applicant would accompany him on his daily trek to Alpha sector for daily briefings. The applicant would accompany him on short range patrols and listening posts. He would also go with him to help carry back c-rations from Alpha sector when resupply was needed. (3) During the Tet battle which took place between 1 January 1968 through 2 February 1968, the applicant fought like a true Soldier and prevented at least three enemies from breaching their perimeter by rendering them as killed in action. He is certain that he may have killed or wounded many more enemy forces, but it is impossible to confirm the exact number since hundreds of shots were fired by the entire squad during the three day battle. (4) During the final day of the battle, on 2 February 1968 after they had been driven out of their bunker by "friendly fire" from one of their own "gunship choppers," the enemy came at them in full force and they were pinned down for the better part of an hour. He found himself out of ammunition for his machine gun. The applicant, with total disregard for his own safety, exposed himself to heavy enemy fire and crawled many yards to reach his position with about 200 rounds of ammunition. That then put him in a position to assault the enemy's position with heavy machine gun fire, thus forcing them to retreat back down the hillside, thereby ending the battle. The applicant's action was the accurate definition of word valor. d. DA Form 638, submitted by Mr. E- recommending the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device. e. Notarized letter attesting to Mr. E-'s statement being true. f. Photograph with the statement "this photograph was taken atop the "Mountain," on 2 February 1968, the morning after the second night of the Tet offensive attack. The applicant was kneeling in front with no hat. Mr. E- is second from the left behind me." 5. See applicable references below. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the requested relief is not warranted. The Board found the available evidence sufficient to fully and fairly consider this case with a personal appearance by the applicant. 2. Based on the available evidence, the Board was unable to determine if the recommendation to award the applicant the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device was prepared but not submitted, or if it was submitted and disapproved, with the applicant receiving a copy of the proposed citation and narrative as a courtesy. The Board further found the single eyewitness statement to be insufficient evidence to verify the events described in the proposed citation and narrative and determined the applicant's request should be denied. 3. The Board found no evidence indicating the applicant has submitted a request for this award under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1130, which allows for a waiver of time limitations for award recommendations referred to the Service Secretaries by a Member of Congress. While the available evidence is insufficient for awarding the applicant a Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device, this in no way affects his right to pursue his claim for this award by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of this statute. The process for submitting a request is described in References below. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : 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 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the 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. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states: a. 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. b. The bronze “V” device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy and authorizes the device in conjunction with awards of the Army Commendation Medal, the Air Medal, and the Bronze Star Medal. 3. Title 10, USC, section 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. Requesting an award under Title 10 USC 1130 requires submission of a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award). The DA Form 638 should clearly identify the Soldier's unit, 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. In addition, the award request 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 (i.e., eyewitness) knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request. Title 10 USC, section 1130 also requires that a request of this nature be referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress. Therefore, requests must be submitted through a Member of Congress who will send it to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ATTN: AHRC-PDP-A, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rest with the requester. 4. AR 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 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190014720 9 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1