IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 June 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007663 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous requests for award of the Air Medal. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Forms 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), 10 February 2008 and 5 April 2022 * three Technical Report of U.S. Army Aircraft Accident Witness Statements, 20 January 1970, with photograph of impact site * three DA Forms 1 (Morning Report), 21 September 1969, 21 December 1969, and 7 February 1970 * 48th Aviation Company (Assault Helicopter) Memorandum (Letter of Commendation), 8 February 1970 * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) (Excerpts) * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20050010940 (Excerpt), 25 April 2006 * Army Review Boards Agency Letter, 29 September 2006 * Letter, 5 June 2008 (A Testimony to the Facts) * National Personnel Records Center Letter, 11 February 2009 * three Buddy Statements, 5 March 2009, 16 March 2009, and 26 April 2009 * Congress of the United States Letter, 30 March 2010 * 48th Assault Helicopter Company Internet Article, "Helicopter 66-16759," 31 May 2014 * U.S. Congressional Representative Privacy Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Authorization Form, 24 January 2022 * U.S. House of Representatives Letter, 9 March 2022 * U.S. Congressional Representative Email (Constituent (Applicant)), 30 August 2022 ? FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Numbers AR20050010940 on 25 April 2006 and AR20060012855 on 19 June 2007. 2. The applicant makes no statement; however, his congressional representative states he respectfully requests consideration for award of the Air Medal to the applicant. For many years the applicant, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has attempted to have his military records corrected to reflect his service as a helicopter door gunner and to be awarded the prestigious Air Medal. a. Among the documents enclosed are testimonies from fellow officers, commanding officers, and a former chief of staff who recommended, not one, but 16 Air Medals for the applicant after reviewing his records. b. Nearing his 75th birthday, they would like to present the applicant with his corrected records and the deserving medal. 3. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 9 August 1968. 4. He was assigned to the 48th Aviation Company (Assault Helicopter), Vietnam, as a machine gunner effective 18 September 1969. 5. The 286th Medical Detachment memorandum (Medical Clearance for Flying), 16 January 1970, states the applicant was medically cleared for flying Gunner Class after an aircraft accident. 6. The three Technical Report of U.S. Army Aircraft Accident Witness Statements, 20 January 1970, describe the events surrounding the helicopter crash, in which the applicant was the door gunner, as the result of severe air turbulence. 7. The three DA Forms 1, 21 September 1969, 21 December 1969, and 7 February 1970, report the applicant's assignment changes in Vietnam. 8. The 48th Aviation Company (Assault Helicopter) memorandum from a pilot (Letter of Commendation), 8 February 1970, expressed sincere appreciation for the applicant's outstanding performance as a crewmember of his aircraft. 9. The 48th Assault Helicopter Company memorandum from the operations officer (Inquiry about Awards and Decorations), 12 February 1971, notified the applicant there was no record of submission of the paperwork for the awards he mentioned. 10. His DA Form 20 shows in: * item 38 (Record of Assignments) – 48th Aviation Company (Assault Helicopter), Vietnam, as a machine gunner from 18 September 1969 through 10 February 1970 * item 39 (Campaigns) – * Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VI * Tet 69 Counteroffensive * Vietnam Summer-Fall 1969 * Vietnam Winter-Spring 1970 * item 40 (Awards and Decorations) – * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * two overseas service bars * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) 11. He was honorably released from active duty on 13 August 1971 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). His DD Form 214 shows in: * item 22a(3) (Net Service This Period) – 3 years * item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * Army Good Conduct Medal * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14) * item 30 (Remarks) – Vietnam Service – 12 February 1969 to 11 February 1970 12. The applicant's records do not contain and he did not provide flight records verifying his flying hours or categories of missions during his service in Vietnam. 13. On 25 April 2006 in Docket Number AR20050010940, the ABCMR noted the applicant's request for award of the Air Medal. The Board further noted there was no evidence indicating he was recommended for or awarded the Air Medal. The Board determined he had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. As a result, award of the Air Medal was not discussed further in the record of proceedings. 14. The buddy statement from , 25 May 2006, states he served in the Vietnam War from February 1969 to May 1970. He was with the 48th Assault Helicopter Company as a door gunner on a Huey helicopter. While there, he served with the applicant, who was also a door gunner. They had to go out on dangerous missions just about every day. He describes the helicopter accident the applicant was involved in and their experiences as door gunners. 15. The Army Review Boards Agency letter, 29 September 2006, notified the applicant of administrative correction of his DD Form 214 and issuance of the following awards: * Army Good Conduct Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with Device (1960) * Meritorious Unit Commendation * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 16. His DD Form 215 (Correction of DD Form 214), 29 September 2006, added the following awards to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 August 1971: * Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars * two overseas service bars * Meritorious Unit Commendation * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Gold Star 17. On 19 June 2007 in Docket Number AR20060012855, the ABCMR denied the applicant's request for award of the Air Medal. The Board found there was no evidence showing the applicant had been recommended for or awarded an Air Medal by the proper authority while serving on active duty. The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket was void of flight records documenting his accrued flight time while serving in Vietnam or records identifying the specific categories of missions he may have participated in. The Board determined the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. The overall merits of the case were insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050010940 on 25 April 2006. 18. His DD Form 149, 10 February 2008, states his flight records are missing and flight records don't exist 6 months to a year after leaving a unit. 19. The buddy statement from former Chief Warrant Officer 3 , 5 June 2008, states he personally selected the applicant as the door gunner for his aircraft. The applicant's support and performance as his door gunner between June 1969 and June 1970 was lifesaving to all of the crewmembers on board, as they flew hundreds of hours in their missions. (Note: The applicant served as a door gunner from 18 September 1969 through 10 February 1970.) 20. The National Personnel Records Center letter, 17 February 2009, notified the applicant of shipment of the following awards based on the documents he provided: * Army Good Conduct Medal * Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars * Meritorious Unit Commendation * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Ribbon with Device (1960) * Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 21. The buddy statement from Chief Warrant Officer 4 (Retired) , 5 March 2009, states he was a pilot in command and aircraft commander with the 48th Assault Helicopter Company stationed at Ninh Hoa, Vietnam, from 15 October 1969 to 15 October 1970. a. During his tour, the applicant was routinely assigned to his flight crew in the position of door gunner. The applicant also flew on other crews in the same capacity. He recalls several combat operations that the applicant flew on that lasted over a week in duration. b. It has come to his attention that flight logs that would reflect the applicant's flight time have been either lost or misplaced. Without the actual documentation, his accrued combat flight time can only be estimated from the known experiences of other flight crewmembers who were there and can bear witness to what the applicant did. c. Given the time frame the applicant was assigned as a door gunner in the 2d Platoon, 48th Assault Helicopter Company, it is his professional opinion that the applicant's total accrued flight time would amount to approximately 400 hours. 22. The buddy statement from , 16 April 2009, states he was stationed in Vietnam during the September 1967 to December 1969 time frame. He cannot remember the exact dates the applicant entered the 48th Assault Helicopter Company, but he was there when he left for his return trip to the United States in December 1969. 23. The buddy statement from Sergeant First Class (Retired) confirms the applicant was assigned as a door gunner with the 2nd Platoon, 48th Assault Helicopter Company, during 1969. Their flight missions included, but were not limited to, resupply of food, water, and ammunition to units conducting missions in the field; units occupying fire bases; medical evacuations of sick and wounded Soldiers, often under heavy enemy fire; combat assaults; reconnaissance missions; and many missions involving the use of Agent Orange. Their missions were frequently flown in adverse weather conditions and many were flown in extremely hostile combat conditions, requiring crew members to risk life and limb to accomplish the assigned missions. 24. The letter from the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania Chief of Staff, 30 March 2010, states: "after your conversation with Brigadier General (Retired) he estimated that you flew very conservatively 400 hours which would validate sixteen Air Medals. In an effort to be of further assistance to you with this matter I have once again contacted the Secretary of the Army on your behalf to try and get you the medals you so rightly deserve." 25. 48th Assault Helicopter Company Internet article, "Helicopter 66-16759," 31 May 2014, describes the history of Helicopter 66-16759, summarizes the accident, and lists the crew, to include the applicant as the gunner. 26. The U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Awards and Decorations Branch letter, 14 May 2015, thanked the applicant for his recent letter to the President of the United States concerning his desire to be awarded the Air Medal, which was forwarded to their office. HRC was unable to authorize the Air Medal for issuance. HRC acknowledged the difficulties in obtaining the documentation requested in their previous correspondence with the applicant's congressional representative; however, HRC must insist upon specific aviation records, such as DA Form 759 (Individual Flight Record and Individual Flight Certificate-Army), DA Form 759-1 (Individual Flight Record), and U.S. Army Vietnam Form 131-R (Awards and Qualification Record-Air Medal), in order to properly assess the merits of the applicant's case. Without these documents, HRC will be unable to process a request for award of the Air Medal. 27. The HRC Awards and Decorations Branch letter, 3 March 2020, responded to the congressional representative's inquiry of 24 February 2020 concerning the applicant's desire to obtain an award of the Air Medal. The Awards and Decorations Branch Chief stated HRC would like to render a favorable action; however, HRC is unable to facilitate his request. As stated to the applicant previously, in order to determine his entitlement to any awards of the Air Medal, HRC requires specific aviation records. Upon receipt of the required documentation, HRC would be pleased to further respond to his request. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and HRC Award and Decorations Brach advisory, the Board concurred with the advisory opinion finding there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim for flight operations for awarded of the Air Medal. This board is not an investigative body. The Board determined despite the absence of the applicant’s flight records, they agreed the burden of proof rest on the applicant, however, he did not provide any supporting documentation and his service record has insufficient evidence to support the applicant contentions for award of the Air Medal. Based on the preponderance of evidence, the Board found amending the previous decision is not warranted and denied 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 Board found 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050010940 on 25 April 2006 and AR20060012855 on 19 June 2007. 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 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity; it is not an investigative body. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 2. U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards), 1 July 1969, governed the military awards program in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. This regulation stated the Air Medal is awarded only for acts performed while participating in aerial flight. It may be given to recognize single acts of heroism, meritorious achievement, and sustained operational activities against an armed enemy. The required achievement, while of lesser degree than that required for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross, must nevertheless have been accomplished with distinction beyond that normally expected. This regulation defined terms and provided guidelines for the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours. a. 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. Combat missions were divided into three categories. (1) 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 delivery of ordnance against the hostile force or delivery of friendly troops or supplies into the immediate combat operations area. Types of Category I missions included aero-medical evacuation from an assault area. (2) A category II mission was characterized by support rendered to a friendly force immediately before, during, or immediately following a combat operation. Types of Category II missions included aero-medical evacuation not connected with combat assault. (3) 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. Types of Category III missions included aero-medical evacuation. b. Commanders ensured that an individual recommended for award of the Air Medal for sustained operations had completed a minimum of 25 hours of category I missions, 50 hours of category II missions, or 100 hours of 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. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. The Air Medal may be awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the Armed Forces of the United States, has distinguished himself or herself by meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight. a. Awards may be made for acts of heroism 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, which are of a lesser degree than required for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross. b. Awards may be made for a single act of meritorious achievement, involving superior airmanship, which are of a lesser degree than required for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross, but nevertheless were accomplished with distinction beyond that normally expected. c. Awards for meritorious service may be made for sustained distinction in the performance of duties involving regular and frequent participation in aerial flight for a period of at least 6 consecutive months. In this regard, accumulation of a specified number of hours and missions will not serve as the basis for award of the Air Medal. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220007663 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1