BOARD DATE: 12 January 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090012502 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his request for award of the Air Medal. 2. The applicant states that he tried to pursue his Air Medal about 30 years ago, but found that the daily flight logs were no longer available. However, he states that he was able to locate three "GI's" to support his claim. 3. The applicant provides in support of his request three supporting statements, dated 1 July 2008, 8 August 2008, and an undated statement. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090003470, on 23 June 2009. 2. In a statement dated 1 July 2008, an individual indicated that he was with the applicant in Vietnam from March 1967 until September 1967. He offered that between test flights and flights as a crew chief/door gunner the applicant flew a minimum of 75 flight hours. He adds that the applicant should have been awarded the basic Air Medal and two clusters. 3. In a statement dated 8 August 2008, an individual indicated that he served with the applicant from September 1966 to September 1967. He offered that the applicant served as a Huey mechanic, but later became a crew chief. 4. In a supporting statement, undated, an individual indicated that he served with the applicant from May until September 1967. He stated that the applicant was a Huey test flight mechanic and later flew as a crew chief. He added that he has no idea how many hours the applicant flew as a test flight crew member or as a crew chief. However, he stated that normally Huey's in their company flew 3 to 5 days a week and usually 3 to 4 hour missions. This individual stated that on the conservative side, he estimated the applicant flew a minimum of 3 days a week for 3 to 4 hours. This individual opined that the applicant logged a minimum of at least 100 hours of flight time on missions in hostile territory. 5. Title 10 of the U. S. Code, section 1130 (10 USC 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. 6. The request, with a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), must be submitted through a Member of Congress to the Secretary of the Army at the following agency: U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Personnel Service Support Division, 200 Stovall Street, Room 3S67, Alexandria, VA  22332-0405. The applicant's unit must be clearly identified, along with 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. Requests for consideration of awards 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 knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rest with the requestor. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. While there is no reason to doubt the statements provided by the applicant's former comrades, such individual statements are acceptable only where corroborating evidence is available from official sources. Given the regulatory burden of proof required to establish entitlement to the award of the Air Medal and lacking any independent evidence of record that confirms the number of flight hours and the type of missions the applicant flew, it is concluded that relief is not warranted in his case. 2. As stated in the previous proceedings, the applicant is reminded of his right to pursue his claim for award of the Air Medal by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10 USC 1130, as cited in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this document. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090003470, dated 23 June 2009. _______ _ __x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090012502 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090012502 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1