IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 February 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210013688 APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of the Former Service Members (FSM) previously awarded Army Commendation Medal with Valor to the Bronze Star Medal with Valor. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Letter authored by Mr dated 1 April 2021 * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 2 March 2020 * Self-authored letter from Mr. dated 2 March 2020 * Excerpt from Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards) * Letter, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 7 December 2020 * Letter authored by Mr. dated 9 November 2020 * Letter, HRC, dated 28 April 2020 * Wikipedia information, dated 25 July 2020 * Self-authored letter from the FSM, dated 18 January 2019 * Letter, HRC, dated 29 January 2020 * Self-authored letter from the FSM, dated 9 March 2020 * Self-authored letter (unknown author) * Email communication, dated 1 March 2019 * Citation, Bronze Star Medal with Valor * Citation, Army Commendation Medal with Valor * Email communication, dated 21 October 2019 * Letter, HRC, dated 7 April 2020 * Email communication * Letter, HRC, dated 19 March 2020 * Self-authored letter from the FSM, dated 14 April 2020 * Email communication, dated 1 February 2019 * Certificate, Honorable Discharge, dated 1 October 1973 * DA Form 1594 (Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officers Log), dated 19 April 1970 * Funeral Program, dated 5 November 2020 FACTS: 1. On behalf of the FSM, the applicant states in pertinent part that the valorous acts conducted by the FSM on 18 April 1970 were not consistent with the definition of the Army Commendation Medal with Valor that he received. The applicant argues that the actions warranted award of the Bronze Star Medal with Valor. In a self-authored letter, the applicant identifies himself as the FSM's brother, Mr.. He states that the FSM submitted his initial request for an upgrade of this award to HRC on 21 January 2019 by following the guidance set forth in Title 10, United States Code, section 1130 in that he routed his request through his congressional representative. Since then, HRC has repeatedly requested that additional documentation be provided. a. 50 years have passed since the FSM performed these valorous acts in combat. As such, it has taken some time and research to obtain supporting documentation to satisfy HRCs rejection of the award upgrade request to include requesting the FSMs records from the National Archives Records Administration (NARA), Tech University and the 199th Infantry Brigade. The command structure at the time of the FSMs actions revealed that Mr. then Captain (CPT) was the only living member of the command team. He was also the commanding officer that initiated the original Army Commendation Medal with Valor recommendation; the most recently submitted DA Form 638 was also drafted and endorsed by him. His provided statement should provide justification for the requested award upgrade. b. The FSM was unable to recall the 5 Soldiers that he led into battle. He suffered a stroke 15 years ago which resulted in partial memory loss. The applicant understands that Commander counseled the applicant as a friend and fellow veteran with regard to requesting an upgrade of his previously received award. Commander repeatedly asked the FSM if he could recall the names of the 5 Soldiers, but he was unable to do so. As such, the applicant requests that the requirement to provide 'Buddy statements" be waived. The FSM passed on 28 October 2020, after suffering from complications associated with the Corona virus and Agent Orange. c. In closing, the applicant provides that a similar combat situation occurred that mirrored the FSM actions wherein a Navy service member (Cook Third Class responded to an attack by manning a deck gun. He was awarded the Navy Cross in recognition of his actions. This award was later upgraded to the Medal of Honor. The applicant understands that this has no bearing on his request. However, the similarities are that both service members were non-combatants, both minorities and both placed themselves in the line of fire in response to an enemy attack. As such, they (the family of the FSM) are requesting that the same consideration be afforded in this case. The FSM was not previously drafted, but instead volunteered to serve his country at a time when so many Americans would not. 2. A review of the FSM's available service records reflects the following: a. On 6 November 1967, the FSM enlisted in the Regular Army. b. On or about 7 February 1969, the FSM departed for the Republic of Vietnam. c. On or about 24 March 1969, the FSM was assigned as a cook to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 4th Battalion 12th Infantry, 199th Infantry Brigade. While assigned, the FSM served in positions of increased responsibility such as First Cook and Mess Steward. The FSM also progressed through the ranks culminating with his promotion to the rank/grade of Staff Sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on or about 14 November 1969. d. On 13 May 1970, Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam issued General Orders Number 1216 announcing award of the Army Commendation Medal with Valor (First Oak Leaf Cluster) to the FSM in recognition of his displayed heroism in connection with military operations against an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam on 18 April 1970. The citation reads: "The FSM was a cook with his unit when it was suddenly subjected to intense hostile fire. Disregarding his personal safety, he maneuvered through hostile fusillade to an exposed position from which he could more effectively place suppressive fire upon the enemy and direct the fire of his comrades. As the battle raged on the FSM resupplied several positions with badly needed ammunition." e. On 26 May 1970, Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam issued General Orders Number 1491 amending General Orders Number 1216 to reflect "Second Oak Leaf Cluster" rather than "First Oak Leaf Cluster." f. On or about 7 June 1970, the FSM departed the Republic of Vietnam and returned to the U.S. g. On 10 June 1970, the FSM was honorably released from the Regular Army and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement). DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the U.S. Report of Transfer or Discharge) item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) reflects: * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Vietnam Campaign Medal * Army Commendation Medal (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters and the "V" Device) h. On 24 October 1973, the U.S. Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center issued Letter Orders Number 09-1255037 honorably discharging the FSM from the USAR retroactively, effective 1 October 1973. i. On 21 January 2019, the FSM submitted a request to have his previously awarded Army Commendation Medal with Valor upgraded to the Bronze Star Medal with Valor. On 25 March 2019, case Management Division responded to the FSM's request advising him that his records did not reflect evidence of documentation indicating that he was previously recommended for nor awarded the Bronze Star. He was therefore redirected to HRC. 3. The applicant provides the following a: a. DA Form 638, dated 2 March 2020, reflective of Captain recommendation that the FSM be awarded the Bronze Star Medal with Valor for his actions occurring on 18 April 1970 wherein the FSM maneuvered through hostile fire to an exposed position and effectively placed suppressive fire upon an enemy forward observer which resulted in a reduction in enemy activity. The FSM provided ammunition resupply on 2 occasions while exposing himself to hostile fire in the retrieval and distribution of ammunition. His bravery and leadership to cross an exposed open field was valorous. The submitted document lacks endorsement beyond the recommending officer. b. Self-authored letter from Mr. dated 2 March 2020, reflective of his statement regarding the criteria submitted in support of the original award. Mr. previously served as the FSM's commanding officer and was the initiator of the original recommendation for award of the Army Commendation Medal with Valor. He provides his personal account of two occasions wherein the FSM displayed acts of heroism. 1) On the first occasion, the FSM identified a position that may have been the location of an enemy forward observer. The incoming hostile fire that included mortars, Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG) and small arms fire was well directed. The FSM correctly observed the location of that observer and directed 5 of his subordinates to concentrate fire on a single tree located in an open field. At that point the battle had raged for at least 3 hours. The following morning a sweep was made of the contested ground and it was discovered that indeed, a deceased enemy combatant was strapped to the tree holding a radio and in possession of a sniper rifle. It is clear that without the FSMs judgement and leadership, the 199th Infantry Brigade may have sustained further casualties. 2) On a second occasion, as ammunition was expended by the FSMs Soldiers, he would not order one of his subordinates to cross open ground by running to the ammunition dump and crossing open and exposed ground. Instead, he recognized and accepted the potential risk of injury caused by small arms fire while placing his own life at risk in the retrieval of ammunition. By his own account, this was a valorous unselfish act. c. Excerpt from AR 600-8-22, reflective of the time limitation associated with the submitted recommendation for awards. The applicant highlights the challenges associated with preparing an award recommendation year's after the action has occurred. He further acknowledges the requirement to submit the recommendation through a member of Congress. d. Letter, HRC, dated 7 December 2020, reflective of their response to the applicant with regard to his submitted request. The applicant was advised that HRC, Awards and Decorations Branch remained unable to render favorable action concerning his request. They acknowledged receipt of the forwarded documentation concerning an award of the Navy Cross to Cook Third Class however, they noted that decorations awarded to other individuals who participated in similar instances cannot be utilized to support an award recommendation. Further, the applicant was advised that in a detailed previous response, dated 28 April 2020, they noted that the governing Army Regulation required that the FSMs award recommendation be endorsed by at least one living member of his former chain of command (not the recommender); this endorsement is necessary to enter the recommendation into military channels and corroborate the validity of the documents. Recognizing Mr. as the only living member of his former chain of command, the applicant was advised that without a living intermediate authority to endorse the award nomination, they were unable to take any further administrative action regarding this award packet. He was then redirected to the ABCMR for requested relief. e. Self-authored letter, dated 9 November 2020, reflective of the applicant's response to the communication provided by HRC on 28 April 2020. The applicant acknowledged understanding of the requirements and again provides the challenges endured while attempting to comply. He notes that the approval authority for the applicant's previously awarded Army Commendation Medal with Valor, Brigadier General was killed in action in 1970. f. Letter, HRC, dated 28 April 2020, reflective of their response to the FSM with regard to his submitted request for award upgrade. The Awards and Decorations Branch advised that they were unable to forward his request for consideration to the Army Decorations Board. Per AR 600-8-22, all requests that are not processed while the Soldier was assigned to the organization or in theater are considered retroactive, and must be processed through the former peacetime and/or wartime chain of command that was in effect at the time of the service or achievement to be recognized. As a general rule, commanders in the former chain of command, to include the awards approval authority for the request, must endorse the recommendation for approval, downgrade, or disapproval as appropriate in the intermediate authority blocks on the DA Form 638. The FSM was further advised that Mr. is already serving as recommending official. Therefore, they require a fully executed endorsement from at least one other living individual who was in his wartime chain of command effective the date of incident. If the remaining chain of command members are deceased, their names, ranks, titles/positions, and dates of death must still be entered into the appropriate intermediate authority blocks. g. Wikipedia information, dated 25 July 2020, reflective of evidence of Brigadier General passing on 1 April 1970. h. Self-authored letter from the FSM, dated 18 January 2019, reflective of his submitted justification, to his congressional representative, for award of the Bronze Star Medal with Valor. The FSM highlights that the actions that he took as specified in his awarded Army Commendation Medal with Valor, did not reflect the award of the most appropriate medal. He argues that the words in that citation, heroism, disregard for personal safety, valorous actions and leadership to lead a unit of men to eliminate a hostile threat is more in line with the criteria for award of the Bronze Star Medal. i. Letter, HRC, dated 29 January 2020, reflective of their response to the FSM's congressional representative. The Awards and Decorations Branch advised that they were unable to forward the FSM's submitted request to the Army Decorations Board at this time. Per AR 600-8-22, it is not possible to nominate oneself for reconsideration of a previously approved award. A reconsideration for award, must be initiated by a qualified recommender who was senior in rank by virtue of his command position, have knowledge of the entire award period, and be endorsed by the original wartime chain of command effective the period of award. Without a fully executed award nomination, they would remain unable to assist in this matter. j. Self-authored letter from the FSM, dated 9 March 2020, reflective of his communication with his congressional representative's office. The FSM notes that he submitted his request for assistance on 14 December 2019. k. Self-authored letter (unknown author) reflective of the information communicated to the FSMs congressional representative on 29 January 2020. l. Email communication, dated 1 March 2019, reflective of communication provided to Commander with regard to the FSMs previous wartime chain of command. Mr. is identified as the Headquarters and Headquarters Company Commander, 4th Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, from 25 October 1969 – 31 December 1969. m. Citation, Bronze Star Medal with Valor, reflective of the recommended citation in the event that the FSMs previous award is upgraded. n. Citation, Army Commendation Medal with Valor, reflective of the accompanying citation in support of the applicant's approved award of the Army Commendation Medal with Valor (Second Oak Leaf Cluster). o. Email communication, dated 21 October 2019, reflective of communication from the National Archives at College Park, MD to Commander with regard to the FSM's military records. They provided him a copy of the daily journal of the FSM's battalion on 18 April 1970. They noted evidence of the FSM's award of the Army Commendation Medal with Valor. p. Letter, HRC, dated 7 April 2020, reflective of their response to the FSMs submitted request for award of the Bronze Star Medal with Valor. The Awards and Decorations Branch advised that they remained unable to forward his request for reconsideration to the Army Decorations Board. They acknowledged receipt of his DD Form 214 and discharge records. However, while such documents were helpful, there were several regulatory requirements not met by the information provided. They would continue to request his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record). Upon receipt of the required documentation, they would further process his request. q. Email communication reflective of communication between Commander and the National Archives at College Park, MD with regard to the FSM's military records. Commander was provided with additional resources (search guides) in order to assist with locating information to support the FSM's requested action. He was also provided with the required information to submit his request through the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). r. Letter, HRC, dated 19 March 2020, reflective of their response to the applicant's congressional representative. The Awards and Decorations Branch advised that they remained unable to forward the submitted request to the Army Decorations Board at this time. They acknowledged receipt of a partially executed DA Form 638, the proposed citation, a Daily Staff Journal, and letter of justification from Mr.. However, as stated in their earlier responses to his office, in order for a previously approved award to be reconsidered for upgrade, there must be new and substantive evidence not previously known to the original wartime chain of command. The new information must be in the form of eyewitness statements from at least two individuals (not the recommender) who were personally present during the incident, and incorporated into a new narrative. They further advised that thus far, no new information had been presented. In addition, they informed him of the requirement to provided official unit reports from the date of the incident. The Daily Staff Journal dated 19 April 1970, provided no information on the attack occurring on 18 April 1970. Lastly, information on the remaining chain of command through the rank of Major General must be entered on the DA Form 638 with either their endorsements or dates of death. Without the required information, they would remain unable to assist in this matter. s. Self-authored letter from the FSM, dated 14 April 2020, reflective of his submission of the Daily Staff Journal, dated 19 April 2020 in its entirety to HRC. He notes that he does not have a copy of his DA Form 20 and was unable to obtain one from NARA. He further requests a waiver of the requirement to provide 'buddy/witness statements" and endorsement by his chain of command. t. Email communication, dated 1 February 2019, reflective of acknowledged receipt of the applicants submitted request and subsequent assignment of Case Number AR20190001336. u. Certificate, Honorable Discharge, dated 1 October 1973, reflective of the applicant being honorably discharged from the U.S. Army. v. DA Form 1594 (Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officers Log), dated 19 April 1970, reflective of an account of events as documented from the S-2/3 Section, 4th Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment. Noted on this document is the FSM being awarded the Army Commendation Medal with Valor. w. Funeral Program, dated 5 November 2020, reflective of the FSMs obituary and program of events related to his funeral service. The document also references the actions taken by the FSM on 18 April 1970. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s contentions, military record and regulatory guidance. The Board reviewed all supporting documentation and correspondence from the Human Resource Command, specifically the requirement in regard to new and substantive evidence not previously known to the applicant’s chain of command at the time. The Board considered the applicant’s period of service and awards and decorations revived. Based on the preponderance of evidence available for review, the Board determined the evidence presented insufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. 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. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that: a. The Army Commendation Medal may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. Awards of the Army Commendation Medal may be made for acts of valor performed under circumstances described above which are of lesser degree than required for award of the Bronze Star Medal. The Army Commendation Medal may be awarded for acts of noncombatant-related heroism which do not meet the requirements for an award of the Soldiers Medal or for acts of aerial flight which do not meet the requirements for award of the Air Medal. b. The Bronze Star Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Armed Forces of the United States, or a friendly foreign nation, after 6 December 1941, distinguished himself or herself by heroic or 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. Awards may be made for acts of heroism, performed under circumstances described above, which are of lesser degree than required for the award of the Silver Star. c. Paragraph 3-1(c) provides that 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. The regulation further provides that 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 predominant factor. 2. United States Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Military Awards) governed the military awards program in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. This regulation stated that the Bronze Star Medal may be awarded for heroism, meritorious achievement or service which does not involve aerial flight, but which is performed in connection with military operations against an armed enemy including combat, support, and supply operations. The Army Commendation Medal maybe awarded to recognize heroism, meritorious achievement or service. The degree of heroism required for non-combat is less than that required for the Soldier's Medal. Degree of heroism required for combat is less than that required for the Bronze Star Medal. 3. Title 10, United States Code, section 1130 provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in timely fashion. It allows, in effect, that upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award or presentation of a decoration (or the upgrading of a decoration), either for an individual or a unit, that is not otherwise authorized to be presented or awarded due to limitations established by law or policy for timely submission of a recommendation for such award or presentation. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall make a determination as to the merits of approving the award or presentation of the decoration. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210013688 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1