| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Ms. Paula Mokulis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and that the “V” device be added to his Air Medal.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was told on several occasions that he had been recommended for award of the DFC and unfortunately, he never received it. However, the aircraft commander and other crewmembers received the DFC for the same mission. He also states that he was awarded a “V” device for his Air Medal that it not reflected on his report of separation (DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was initially inducted on 8 December 1960 and was honorably discharged on 1 March 1961 for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army. On 2 March 1961, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and training as an aircraft mechanic. Upon completion of his training he was transferred to France, where he served for 28 months before being transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. He reenlisted on 2 March 1964 for a period of 3 years and was transferred to Vietnam on 25 June 1965, for duty as a helicopter repairman. He remained in Vietnam until 2 August 1966 and was awarded the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Aircraft Crewman Badge for his service in Vietnam. There is no indication in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) of any recommendation for award of the DFC or award of the “V” device for any of his awards and decorations.
The applicant was honorably discharged on 20 January 1971 and again enlisted at Fort Ord, California on 26 May 1971. He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments until he was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-7, on 31 October 1981, and was placed on the Retired List, effective 1 November 1981. He had served 20 years, 6 months and 27 days of total active service.
Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided the criteria for awards and decorations. It states, in pertinent part, that the DFC is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army of the United States, distinguished himself by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight. The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty. The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from his comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances. Awards will be made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained operational activities against an armed enemy.
That regulation also provides, in pertinent part, that the “V” device is worn to denote participation in acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy. It was originally worn only on the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) to denote an award for heroism (valor). However, on 29 February 1964, it was authorized for wear on the Air Medal and the ARCOM for heroic acts or valorous deeds not warranting of the DFC or the BSM with “V” device.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130 (formerly known as section 522 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996) provides that the Service concerned will review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that would not otherwise be authorized to be awarded based upon time limitations previously established by law. A separate DA Form 638, Recommendation for Award must be submitted. The individual’s unit, the period of assignment, and the award being recommended must be clearly identified. A narrative of the actions or period for which this recognition is 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 comrades who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request. The law also requires that a request for award not previously submitted in a timely fashion will only be considered under this provision if the request has been referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress. The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rests with the requestor. The request should be sent through the Member of Congress, to: Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, ATTN: TAPC-PDO-PA (Awards Branch), Room 3S67, Hoffman II, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22332-0400.
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. 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 this requirement.
2. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that he was recommended for or was awarded the DFC or the “V” device for an award of the Air Medal. Accordingly, if the applicant cannot provide orders awarding him those awards, he may exhaust his administrative remedies by submitting a recommendation for award using the procedures outlined above.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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
___pm __ ___rvo __ ___jpi ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060423 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/30 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 1046 | 107.0132/DFC |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022486
A review of the original ROP and the records on file at the Army Decorations Board (ADB) confirm that, except for the two OER's, all of the documents submitted with this request for reconsideration have been previously considered and do not constitute new evidence. The original ROP states: a. the applicant was awarded the DFC for his heroic actions in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN); b. in August 2009, the Commander, HRC disapproved forwarding a recommendation to the Senior Army Decorations...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010233C080407
The applicant's MPRJ is void of any orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the BSM while serving on active duty. The applicant's record is void of any orders, documents, or an award recommendation that shows he was ever recommended for the BSM while serving on active duty. The evidence of record also shows that based on his RVN service and campaign participation, the applicant is entitled to the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and 1...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021777
Counsel also states the applicant and this warrant officer were both involved in the same action on the night of 6 November 1965. The DA Form 638 and statement submitted in support of award of the DFC for CW4 K _ _ _ _ _ stated as the A/C of a UH-1D Helicopter flying lead of a flight of three returning from an earlier day-long mission when they received an emergency radio call advising that a cavalry unit was under nearly overwhelming enemy fire. In a letter, dated 16 October 2009, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001250
The applicant states the DFC he was awarded for action in the A Shau Valley in Vietnam should be upgraded to the DSC. He provides: * USARV Form 157-R (Recommendation for Decoration for Valor or Merit) * Proposed Citation for the DFC * General Orders for the DFC, dated 9 July 1969 * DFC Award Certificate * DFC Award Citation * General Orders for the DFC for the co-pilot of the aircraft * Information paper, subject: A Shau Valley-Private First Class (PFC), by J___ F__ * five letters of...
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 | CY2011 | 20110005448
In a letter to the applicant, dated 19 October 2010, Chief, Military Awards Branch, HRC, stated on 26 August 2009, the Commanding General, HRC, disapproved forwarding the recommendation to the Senior Army Decorations Board and affirmed that the previously awarded Distinguished Flying Cross was the appropriate award for his action. A letter to LTC B_____, dated 22 February 2011, from the Army Review Board Agency stated that in order to initiate a review of the applicant's military records...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03558
All elements of a DFC for heroism approved (certificate dated) between 18 September 1947 to 2 June 2004 will not be reaccomplished to reflect “Valor”; nonetheless, individuals with these DFCs are authorized to the wear the “V” device.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR states the applicant was awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement and not heroism. Therefore, they recommend the applicant’s request for the “V” device...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054861C070420
He further indicates it was never awarded. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the PUC (known as the Distinguished Unit Citation until 3 November 1966) is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides in pertinent part for award of the DFC.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004517
The applicant served as a crew chief/gunner on one UH-1 during the operation and, despite being wounded, he continued with the mission, helping to return his aircraft to base. Given the awarding of Air Medals with V Devices to several other enlisted aircraft crewmembers for their actions on 24 March 1971, it would be just and equitable to award the applicant the same decoration. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011602
During this assignment he served as an aircraft commander of an aircraft with tail number UH-1H 69-15270. Additionally, his company commander informed him he would receive this award before he returned to the United States. The applicant has provided no evidence nor is there evidence in his record to show he was recommended for or received orders for award of the DFC.