RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           28 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009262


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |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, in effect, reconsideration of his request to be
awarded the Air Medal (AM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was on flight status while
serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He claims that he and three
other crewmembers were involved in an aircraft accident that resulted in
his receiving the Purple Heart (PH).  He claims that all three of the other
members of the crew received the AM, and that the aircraft pilot received
the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) (posthumously), for his actions during
this incident.  He rhetorically asks why the aircraft commander, who also
ultimately died from the injuries he received during the aircraft accident,
did not receive the DFC like the aircraft pilot, whose body was not
recovered from the crash cite did, and wonders if this paperwork was also
lost.  The applicant further refers to a lined out item on his Enlisted
Qualification Record (DA Form 20) and asks who lined this item out.  He
further states he is providing AM orders for other members of the aircraft
crew and claims that the period he was flying corresponds with the dates
for which the aircraft pilot received the AM (posthumously).

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Certificate of Performance of Hazardous Duty (DD Form 122),
Daily Staff Journal of Duty Officer’s Log (DA Form 1594 with an
accompanying partial Aircraft Accident Report, PH Orders, 1st Aviation
Brigade General Orders (GO) Number (#) 5653, 1st Aviation Brigade GO #
5851, 1st Aviation Brigade GO # 5893,
1st Aviation Brigade GO # 6080 and seven third-party electronic mail (e-
mail) messages.

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
AR2003092408, on
9 December 2003.

2.  In its original consideration of the applicant’s case, the Board found
sufficient evidence to support correcting his record to add the
Presidential Unit Citation, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm
Unit Citation, Vietnam Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars, RVN
Campaign Medal and Aircraft Crewmember Badge.  The Board found insufficient
evidence to support award of the AM.
3.  The Board also noted that the applicant’s DA Form 20 contained an entry
indicating award of the AM with Valor (“V”) Device, but that this entry was
lined out.  The Board further noted the absence of any orders awarding him
the AM from his record.

4.  During its first review, the Board also noted that other than the PH,
there were no orders, or other documents on file indicating the applicant
received any other individual award or decoration for the action that
resulted in the aircraft accident cited.  The Board finally concluded that
there was insufficient evidence to support award of the AM in the
applicant’s case.

5.  The applicant now provides a copy of a DD Form 122, dated 1 January
1968, which indicates he was placed on flight status and authorized to
receive flight pay.  This document provides no information regarding the
category type and/or number of missions he participated in while serving in
the RVN.

6.  The applicant also provides a DA Form 1594, dated 10 November 1967,
with a partial unit activity summary.  These documents contain information
regarding the aircraft accident the applicant was involved in on 10
November 1967.  They confirm he was part of a four person aircraft crew on
a mission providing air cover for a combat assault when the aircraft was
shot down by enemy fire.  The activity summary outlines the recovery
operations and confirms the applicant and two other members were recovered,
and one crewmembers’ body, the aircraft pilot, was not recovered from the
aircraft.

7.  The applicant and all other crewmembers were awarded the PH for
injuries they received in the 10 November 1967 aircraft accident.  The
applicant now provides AM orders for the other crewmembers, and orders
awarding the aircraft pilot the DFC (posthumously) for heroism based on his
actions of 10 November 1967.  He also provides e-mail traffic from
individuals who participated in the operations of 10 November 1967.  All
these individuals confirm the circumstances surrounding the aircraft
accident.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes the Army’s awards policy.
Paragraph
3-15 contains guidance on award of the AM.  It states the AM is awarded to
any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the U.S. Army,
will have distinguished himself or herself by meritorious achievement while
participating in aerial flight. Awards may be made to recognize single acts
of merit or heroism, or for meritorious service as described below.

9.  The awards regulation further states that the AM may be awarded for
single acts of meritorious achievement, involving superior airmanship,
which are of a lesser degree than required for award of the DFC, but
nevertheless were accomplished with distinction beyond that normally
expected.  Awards for meritorious service may be made for sustained
distinction in the performance of duties involving regular and frequent
participation in aerial flight for a period of at least 6 months.  In this
regard, accumulation of a specified number of hours and missions will not
serve as the basis for award of the AM.

10.  United States Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and
Awards) provided, in pertinent part, guidelines for award of the AM for
members who served in Vietnam.  It established that passenger personnel who
did not participate in an air assault were not eligible for the award based
upon sustained operations.  It defined terms and provided guidelines for
the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours.  Twenty-
five Category I missions
(air assault and equally dangerous missions) and accrual of a minimum of
25 hours of flight time while engaged in Category I missions was the
standard established for which sustained operations were deemed worthy of
recognition by an award of the AM.

11.  The USARV awards regulation, in regard to the AM, also indicated that
combat missions were divided into three categories.  A category I mission
was defined as a mission performed in an assault role in which a hostile
force was engaged and was characterized by delivery of ordnance against the
hostile force, or delivery of friendly troops or supplies into the
immediate combat operations area.  A category II mission was characterized
by support rendered a friendly force immediately before, during or
immediately following a combat operation.  A category III mission was
characterized by support of friendly forces not connected with an immediate
combat operation but which must have been accomplished at altitudes which
made the aircraft at times vulnerable to small arms fire, or under
hazardous weather or terrain conditions.

12.  The USARV awards regulation further indicated that to be recommended
for award of the AM, an individual must have completed a minimum of 25
category I missions, 50 category II missions or 100 category III missions.
Since various types of missions would have been completed in accumulating
flight time toward award of an AM for sustained operations, different
computations would have had to be made to combine category I, II and III
flight time and adjust it to a common denominator.

13.  Appendix IV of the USARV awards regulation required that
recommendations for award of the AM Medal for crewmembers or
non-crewmembers on flying status would be submitted on USARV Form 157-R.
The recommendation for award also had to state that the individual has “met
the required number of missions and hours for award of the AM, and that
they had not caused, either directly or indirectly, an aircraft abort, late
take-off, accident or incident”, and that the “individual’s accomplishments
and service throughout the period have reflected meritorious performance,
with no instance of nonprofessionalism, mediocrity, or failure to display
an aggressive spirit”.

14.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records)
prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records
by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction
of Military Records (ABCMR).  Paragraph 2-2 outlines the functions of the
ABCMR.  It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR considers individual
applications that are properly brought before it.  It further stipulates
that the ABCMR is not an investigative body and will decide cases on the
evidence of record.

15.  Paragraph 2-9 of the ABCMR regulation contains guidance on the burden
of proof.  It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its
consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative
regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice
by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that he should have received the AM and the
supporting documents he provided were carefully considered.  However, there
is insufficient evidence to change the original findings and recommendation
of the Board on this issue.

2.  The applicant’s record includes no orders, or other documents
indicating he was recommended for, or awarded the AM by proper authority.
Further, there are no flight records available to confirm he completed the
number of missions necessary to receive the AM.  The line out of the AM
with “V” Device entry on his DA Form 20 is consistent with the policy in
effect at the time for removing erroneous entries on the record.  Other
than his assertion, there is no evidence that would support a conclusion
that his record was tampered with.

3.  The e-mail messages provided by the applicant all contain confirmation
of the fact that he was involved in the 10 November 1967 aircraft accident
and that he was successfully recovered after the aircraft crashed.  None of
the individuals providing statements were in a position to confirm his
eligibility for the AM.  As a result, these statements provide an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support award of the AM at this late
date.

4.  The applicant’s questions regarding awards received by other crew
members is not within the purview of this Board.  The Board is not an
investigative body and reviews each case based on the evidence of record
properly brought before it.  Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the
Board to comment on awards received or not received by other Soldiers, or
to base its decision in this case on awards other members received.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WDP   ___LCB _  ___JBG__  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 AR2003092408, dated 9 December 2003.




            ____William D. Powers____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009262                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR2003093408                            |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/07/28                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/07/03                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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