APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records to reflect award of the Bronze Star Medal with V device.
APPLICANT 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 applicants 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 applicants request been available at the time he would have awarded him the Bronze Star Medal.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered active duty on 30 January 1968 and following completion of training as an infantryman was assigned to Vietnam in July 1968.
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 automatic 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.
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.
The statements submitted in support of the applicants 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.
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 applicants role in the mission. This statement notes that the actions of the applicant and another soldier were key to the success of the units mission and in keeping our company from being overrun on that day....
A search of the Vietnam era awards files produced an order awarding a Bronze Star Medal with V device to the other soldier identified in the witness statement as having been a key player in the 13 September 1968 action. His Bronze Star Medal citation noted that:
Specialist Gs company was engaged by a well-entrenched enemy force.... During the initial barrage of enemy fire, Specialist G moved forward and engaged the enemy positions. Realizing that many of his wounded comrades were still exposed to the enemy fire, he maneuvered to a position from which he could engage the enemy positions with grenades. Then continually moving through the intense enemy fire, Specialist G carried several of his wounded comrades to safety and continued to place effective fire on the enemy until contact was broken.
Both valor awards were approved by the commanding general, 4th Infantry Division. The applicants award order was issued on 17 November 1968 while the other soldiers award order was published on 28 November 1968.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that no individual is entitled to an award and that each personal decoration requires a recommendation, approval through the chain of command and announcement in orders. Additionally, the Army does not condone self-recognition; therefore, a soldier may not recommended himself/herself for award of a decoration.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. There is no evidence that the applicants 1968 award recommendation was initiated by the commander he allegedly had the altercation with or that a conscious decision was made to deny the applicant a higher decoration by downplaying his contributions. The citation contained in the Army Commendation Medal award order would not have been the sole document on which the award decision was based. Rather the original recommendation would have included an expanded narrative which may very well have included the additional details which, when reviewed, were determine only to warrant the award granted.
2. While the applicants actions were certainly noteworthy the Army Commendation Medal appropriately recognized his heroism. Even with the expanded details of the applicants actions they were not of the level displayed by the other soldier who was awarded the Bronze Star Medal.
3. Although the former division commander now believes the applicant should receive the Bronze Star Medal he makes that recommendation based solely on statements rendered nearly
30 years after the fact and without the benefit of comparison to the multitude of other awards he may have approved at the time.
4. The applicants belief that he deserves a higher decoration is not a basis to award that decoration and is tantamount to recommending himself for an award.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
6. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605663aC070209
He states he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal with V device instead of a Bronze Star Medal based on an incomplete award recommendation. 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. RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014952
e. Letter, dated 22 May 2008, from the applicant's former platoon leader to the applicant's counsel. In June 2008, the applicant solicited the help of his counsel to assist him in upgrading his Bronze Star Medal. After returning the fire, [PFC Hxxxxxt] moved toward the enemy position and eliminated it with fire from his rifle.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130001035
On 14 August 2012, this Board also determined there was no evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant that would support a conclusion that the applicant's award recommendation was not properly processed. Commanders at the time of the act, or shortly thereafter, determined the applicant's actions were so noteworthy as to warrant award of the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device. However, the Army Decorations Board determined the degree of action and service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004099980C070208
Records show the Military Awards Branch advised the Member of Congress by letter, dated 16 May 1997, that the Army Decorations Board, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, had determined the degree of heroism for award of the Silver Star did not merit approval of award of the Distinguished Service Cross or the Medal of Honor. [Soldier's name omitted] distinguished himself while serving as commanding officer, Company D, on a reconnaissance-in-force mission against enemy forces near...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005117
He also indicated the Decorations and Awards Board, 8th U.S. Army Korea, recommended award of the Distinguished Service Cross. The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States not justifying award of the Medal of Honor. The highest awards for valor are, in descending order, the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013484
The applicant provides a copy of Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division, General Orders Number 7432, showing awards of the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device dated 25 August 1968 and General Orders Number 8597, showing award of the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device, dated 17 September 1968 in support of his request. The evidence of record shows the applicant was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019742
On 21 February 1968, the applicant and four comrades were engaged with enemy soldiers when one of his comrades attempted to throw an un-pinned phosphorous grenade at an enemy position. At that time, the applicant moved across the room, grabbed the live grenade, and rolled toward a hole in the wall placing his body between the grenade and the other four men, and as he attempted to throw it, it detonated burning him critically, but saving the lives of four men. Army Regulation 600-8-22...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011532
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Headquarters, 9th Infantry Division General Orders Number 6435, dated 6 August 1968, show the applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal with V Device for action on 2 July 1968. There are no medical records in the applicants military personnel file to show he sustained wounds as a result of hostile action or to show he was treated for wounds as a result of hostile action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150005433
By that time the enemy force had moved within 100 meters and despite helicopter gun ship support, the helicopters were raked by crew served automatic weapons fire and small arms as they landed. The commander ordered that aircraft to pick him up, with his aircraft following in support. [Applicant's] fire kept the enemy away from them.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015665
Headquarters, 71st Evacuation Hospital, General Orders Number 36, dated 31 March 1970, show that the wounded Soldier, described in the applicant's self-authored statement, was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received in action on 30 March 1970. b. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to grant the applicant the Purple Heart and correct his records to show this award. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected...