RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         16 SEPTEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004103280


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Luther Santiful               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Marla Troup                   |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his  separation  document  be  corrected  to
show award of the Air Medal, a Bronze Star Medal, that he was  separated  in
pay grade E-5, and that he served for 435 days in Vietnam.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served for 435 days in
Vietnam, although his separation document only reflects service between 16
September 1970 and 20 October 1971.  He states that he was initially
assigned to a small "Huey Co[mpany]" which he remembers as part of the
"Division, First Field Forces."

3.  He states that in addition to his duties as a helicopter mechanic he
was also responsible for maintaining the "aircraft accounting/status
boards" which reflected flight time and when inspections were due for
critical flight components. He states that one day he discovered an error
on the board and was told that he was going to be reassigned to the 101st
Airborne Division.

4.  The applicant states that he was then sent to airborne training and
because he already had "in excess of 100 days in country" he was exempt
from "jump school."

5.  He states that he believes his separation document only reflects his
time in the 163rd Aviation Company and states that he agreed to extend his
Vietnam tour by 100 days so he could qualify for an early separation
program.  However, he states that once he agreed to remain in Vietnam for
the additional time, he was not permitted to participate in the program
because he was a trained crew chief and his commander needed someone with
his skills.

6.  In addition to his self-authored statement, the applicant provides
copies of orders confirming his award of seven Air Medals, and a "Merit
Roster for Promotion to E-5" which reflects his selection date as 23 June
1971.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 20 October 1971.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
13 January 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant requested correction of his records to show award of the
Bronze Star Medal.  There are no orders or other evidence authorizing award
of this decoration.  In the absence of a proper award authority for this
decoration, the applicant may request award of the Bronze Star Medal under
the provisions of Section 1130 of Title 10, United States Code.  The
applicant has been notified by separate correspondence of the procedures
for applying for this decoration under Section 1130 and, as a result, it
will not be discussed further in the Record of Proceedings.

4.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted and
entered active duty for a period of 2 years on 17 March 1970.  He
successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and
was assigned to Fort Rucker, Alabama, for advanced individual training as a
helicopter mechanic.

5.  The applicant was awarded his military specialty (67N) on 14 August
1970, upon completion of training.

6.  Orders issued at Fort Rucker on 31 July 1970 initially assigned the
applicant to Fort Dix, New Jersey for onward deployment to Vietnam.  His
reporting date to Fort Dix was established as 11 September 1970.  On 10
August 1970 those orders were amended to assign the applicant to Oakland
Army Base, California for onward travel to Vietnam.  His reporting date to
Oakland Army Base was established as not later than 14 August 1970.

7.  According to item 31 (foreign service) on the applicant's Department of
the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), the applicant arrived in
Vietnam on 16 September 1970.

8.  Orders issued on 22 September 1970, by Headquarters, I Field Force
Vietnam, assigned the applicant to the 54th Signal Battalion.  On 5
November 1970 he was reassigned from the 54th Signal Battalion to the 101st
Airborne Division and ultimately assigned to the 163rd Aviation Company,
part of the 101st Airborne Division.  There is no indication that the
applicant attended any airborne training course while in Vietnam.

9.  In January 1971 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-4.

10.  In May 1971 he was awarded his initial award of the Air Medal in
recognition of his meritorious achievement during the period 15 March 1971
to 29 March 1971.

11.  On 23 June 1971 the applicant's name was placed on a "Merit Roster for
Promotion to E-5" as a result of a promotion board which convened on 22
June 1971.  The merit roster notes that the promotion board convened to
"consider personnel recommended for appointment to grade E-5.”  There is,
however, no orders in the applicant's file indicating that was subsequently
promoted to pay grade E-5.

12.  The applicant's file contains an installation clearance record which
indicates that the applicant cleared the 163rd Aviation Company on 12
October 1971.  The clearance form indicates the applicant was an E-
5/SP[specialist]5.  His Department of the Army Form 20 indicates he
departed Vietnam on 14 October 1971.  The form also states that the
applicant was retained in Vietnam for 35 days as a result of his pending
separation date.

13.  On 20 October 1971 the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination.  The examination form also shows the applicant's grade as SP5.

14.  On 20 October 1971 the applicant was released from active duty with an
honorable characterization of service.  Although his separation orders show
that he was an E-5 at the time of separation, his separation document shows
that he was separated in pay grade E-4.

15.  On 21 October 1971, the day following his release from active duty,
orders were issued by the applicant's former command in Vietnam awarding
him six additional awards of the Air Medal in recognition of his
meritorious achievement during the period 30 March 1971 to 6 October 1971.

16.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and
Campaign Participation Credit Register) notes the applicant’s unit was
credited with participating in two designated campaigns (Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phases VII and Consolidation I) during the applicant’s
period of assignment.  Two bronze service stars on the Vietnam Service
Medal, which is recorded on his separation document, should reflect his
campaign participation.  The applicant is also entitled to a Republic of
Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and a Republic of Vietnam
Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, awarded during his
tenure with 54th Signal Battalion and the 163rd Aviation Company.  The unit
awards were also omitted from his separation document.
17.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time when the service member
was discharged, required that throughout a qualifying period of service for
award of the Good Conduct Medal the enlisted person must have had all
“excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-
martial.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for
the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military
service.  With the publication of the new Army Regulation 672-5-1, in 1974,
the requirement for all excellent conduct and efficiency ratings was
dropped and an individual was required to show that he/she willingly
complied with the demands of the military environment, had been loyal and
obedient, and faithfully supported the goals of his organization and the
Army.  Today, Army Regulation 600-8-22, which replaced Army Regulation 672-
5-1, notes that there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct
Medal and disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires
that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and
permits the individual to respond.

18.  The applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his military
service were excellent, and he had no record of any disciplinary actions or
incidents of misconduct.

19.  Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, states that an
individual in pay grade E-4 is eligible for promotion consideration to pay
grade E-5 after 21 months of military service and 8 months of service in
pay grade E-4, among several other requirements (education, security
clearance, specialty qualification score, etc.).  Up to 4 months time in
grade could be waived and up to 6 months time in service could be waived.
Additionally, once recommended for promotion the individual was required to
appear before a promotion selection board after which the individual's name
would be incorporated on to an order of merit recommended list status for
promotion to pay grade E-5.  Promotions are then made from individuals on
the order of merit list based on monthly promotion quota issued from
Department of the Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms that the applicant was awarded seven awards of
the Air Medal.  His records should be corrected accordingly.

2.  The evidence also show that the applicant is entitled to two bronze
service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal, a Republic of Vietnam Gallantry
Cross Unit Citation with Palm and a Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor
Medal First Class Unit Citation.

3.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal on 20 October 1971.  There is no evidence his
commander ever disqualified him from receiving the award and no evidence of
any misconduct which would justify denying him the award.  In view of the
foregoing, the Board concludes that the applicant met the basic
qualifications for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and it would be
appropriate and in the interest of equity to award him that decoration for
the period 17 March 1970 through
20 October 1971.

4.  The applicant’s contention that he served 435 days in Vietnam is not
supported by any evidence in available records.  The applicant’s entire
military service spanned approximately 575 days.  Had he served the 435
days which he alleges, he would have had to deploy to Vietnam by mid-July
1970, at which time he was still undergoing training.  The available
records indicate that the applicant’s service in Vietnam was extended for
approximately 35 days in order to enable him to return to the United States
and be separated rather than being reassigned to an installation for a
short period of time prior to his scheduled separation date.  Although the
dates of the applicant’s tour of duty in Vietnam, which are reflected on
his separation document, may be off by a few days, based on information
contain in his file, the entry is not so erroneous as to cause any
injustice and as such warrants no correction.

5.  The evidence does show that the applicant was on an order of merit list
for promotion to pay grade E-5.  Based on the fact that several documents
in the applicant’s file do show his grade as E-5 just prior to his
separation from active duty, it is possible that he was promoted.  However,
it is just as possible that the source of that grade information on those
documents came from the applicant, in view of the fact that his file does
not contain any promotion orders.  In the absence of more compelling
evidence that the applicant was in fact promoted, his name of an order of
merit list is not sufficient to change his separation document to show that
he was separated in pay grade E-5.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__LS ___  ___JM___  ___MT__  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

      a.  showing that he was awarded seven awards of the Air Medal;


      b.  showing that he is entitled to two bronze service stars on his
Vietnam Service Medal, a Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
with Palm and a Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class
Unit Citation; and


      c.  awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 17 March
1970 through 20 October 1971.


2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
service in Vietnam for 435 days and that he was separated in pay grade E-5.




                            ____   Luther Santiful________
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004103280                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040916                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |PARTIAL GRANT                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |110.00                                  |
|3.                      |131.00                                  |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]