2.  The applicant requests that his military records be corrected to reflect award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device.  He states he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal with “V” device instead of a Bronze Star Medal based on an incomplete award recommendation.  In support of his request he submit statements from two former soldiers who maintain the applicant’s heroism was downplayed because of a confrontation with his unit commander.  Additionally, he submits an October 1994 statement from the former commanding general, 4th Infantry Division who indicated that had the information contained in the applicant’s request been available at the time he would have awarded him the Bronze Star Medal.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 30 January 1968 and following completion of training as an infantryman was assigned to Vietnam in July 1968.

4.  According to his Army Commendation Medal with “V” device he was cited for heroism on 13 September 1968 when his:

“company made contact with a well-entrenched enemy force....  Despite intense enemy automatice weapons and rocket fire, [the applicant] rushed forward to engage the enemy.  As he maneuvered forward, an enemy soldier blocked his path and wounded him.  Eliminating this opposition, [the applicant] moved forward, despite his wound.  Flanking an enemy bunker he placed accurate fire on it, wounding its occupants thus enabling his company to continue its advance.”

5.  As a result of the injuries sustained on 13 September 1968 the applicant was evacuated and ultimately assigned to Fort Hood, Texas where he was released from active duty effective 18 September 1969 when it was determined that a commitment in his enlistment contract had not been fulfilled.




6.  The statements submitted in support of the applicant’s request were authored in 1989 and 1990.  One statement credits the applicant with killing or wounding more enemy soldiers than what was inferred in his Army Commendation Medal citation and indicates the applicant and his commander “had a heated discussion” about the mission prior to his being evacuated.

7.  The second statement also refers to an “angry exchange of words” between the applicant and his commander and that the exchange resulted in downplaying the applicant’s role in the mission.  This statement notes that the actions of the applicant an another soldier were key to the success of the unit’s mission and “in keeping our company from being overrun on that day....”

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of records confirms the applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal for his heroic actions on 13 September 1968.

2.  The applicant maintains that he would have received a Bronze Star Medal with “V” device if the extent of his heroism would have been properly recorded.  His contention is supported by statement from two former members of his command and by the commanding general who approved the original award.

3.  In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by awarding the individual concerned the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device for his heroic actions on 13 September 1968; and

	b.  by revoking the Army Commendation Medal with “V” device which was previously awarded to the applicant for the same action.





		                           
		       ALFREDO CAMPO
		        CHAIRPERSON