RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           24 August 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004099980


      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. Eric S. Moore                 |     |Analyst              |

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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 through counsel that his award of the Silver
Star for actions in Vietnam on 18 and 19 March 1968 be upgraded to award of
the Medal of Honor.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that counsel will provide the
particulars of the injustice in a separate memorandum and will provide the
supporting documentary evidence.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel, the current President of the Muscogee Red Stick Society,
requests that the applicant's award of the Silver Star for actions in
Vietnam on 18 and     19 March 1968 be upgraded to an award of the Medal of
Honor.

2.  Counsel states that the citation for the award of the Silver Star to
the applicant for his actions on 18 and 19 March 1968 failed to mention
very obvious and extremely courageous acts.  Counsel argues that he
believes these courageous acts warrant an upgrade of the Silver Star to the
Medal of Honor.  Specifically, counsel contends that the applicant jumped
30 to 40 feet from a resupply helicopter to the center of the company's
battle perimeter which was under heavy fire and that the applicant led a
rescue mission that saved the lives of three individuals.

3.  Counsel contends that the eyewitness statements which he provides
substantiate and affirm the actions of the applicant on 18 and 19 March
1968 in Vietnam and that those statements provide sufficient evidence and
justification to upgrade the applicant's award of the Silver Star to the
Medal of Honor.

4.  Counsel also argues, in effect, that the applicant was never contacted
by the Army Decorations Board to give testimony in support of his 1996
request for award of the Medal of Honor.

5.  Counsel contends that a second request for the Medal of Honor was sent
to the Chief of Staff of the Army on 22 June 2001.  He states that this
request was rejected because it did not contain new and substantive
evidence.  Counsel questions: "How could this be when once again no one was
contacted reference to this request?"

6.  Counsel asserts that the Army has never taken the applicant's
recommendation for the Medal of Honor seriously because the petitioners
were enlisted soldiers and those soldiers were never contacted to appear to
testify on the applicant's behalf.

7.  Counsel provides evidence consisting of approximately 75 pages
contained in 30 enclosures.  Counsel also provides a 12 January 2004 letter
which forwards a 14-page supplemental packet.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Military records show the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17
August 1948.  He completed infantry training and served in Korea, Japan,
Germany and twice in Vietnam. He retired from the Regular Army on 28
February 1970 in the rank of first sergeant/pay grade E-8 after the
completion of over 21 years of service.

2.   The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty) was reissued on 11 August 2000.  This document shows the
following awards: the Silver Star, the Bronze Star Medal w/Oak Leaf
Cluster, the Air Medal, the Good Conduct Medal 7th Award, the Presidential
Unit Citation, the Meritorious Unit Citation, the Valorous Unit Citation,
the National Defense Service Medal w/Oak Leaf Cluster, the Korean Service
Medal w/two Bronze Service Stars, the Vietnam Service Medal w/one Silver
Service Star and two Bronze Service Stars, the Combat Infantryman Badge 2nd
Award, the United Nation Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign
Ribbon w/Device, the Expert Badge w/Carbine and Rifle Bars, the Master
Parachutist Badge, a Letter of Commendation, three Letters of Appreciation,
the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation Badge, and the Republic of
Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation Badge.

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214 issued on 11 August 2000 does not show the
applicant was awarded the Medal of Honor or the Distinguished Service
Cross.

4.  The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OPMF) contains 101st
Airborne Division General Orders Number 9303, dated 12 November 1968, which
awarded the applicant the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device for heroism in
ground combat against a hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam during the
period 18 and 19 March 1968.  The Major General in command of the 101st
Airborne Division approved the award which was then announced in General
Orders 9303, dated 12 November 1968.  The reason for award of the Bronze
Star Medal with "V" Device was stated as follows:

"For heroism in ground combat against a hostile force in the Republic of
Vietnam during the period 18 March to 19 March 1968.  First Sergeant
[applicant's name omitted] distinguished himself while serving as First
Sergeant of Company D, 3d Battalion (Airborne), 187th Infantry, in the
vicinity of Phuoc Vinh, Republic of Vietnam.  The Third Brigade Long Range
Reconnaissance Patrol, while walking point for Company D, made initial
contact with an estimated reinforced Viet Cong Battalion.  As the intense
firefight increased in volume, Company D became engaged and a ravaging
battle resulted continuing into the night.  First Sergeant [applicant's
name omitted] had remained in Phuoc Vinh preparing his unit for annual
Inspector General's inspection.  During this time, he had been constantly
monitoring a company radio and had heard that the much needed resupply
helicopter had not yet arrived.  He immediately left for the helicopter
pad, assisted in loading the ship, and remained in the aircraft for the
resupply.  As the aircraft approached the area, First Sergeant [applicant's
name omitted] leaned outside the ship to guide the pilot into the small
landing zone despite a heavy volume of intense automatic and small arms
fire, which the enemy directed at the incoming ship.  After offloading and
breaking down the ammunition supplies, he immediately moved about the
perimeter distributing the badly needed ammunition and encouraging his
struggling men.  First Sergeant [applicant's name omitted] personal bravery
and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the
military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the
United States Army."

5.  The evidence provided by counsel contains background information on the
Medal of Honor, information on the applicant, justification for upgrade of
the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor, a historical overview of the
operation of Company D, 3d Battalion (Airborne), 187th Infantry in Vietnam
during the period 18 March 1968 through 19 March 1968 and supporting
documentation.

6.  Records submitted by counsel shows that, on 18 August 1996, the former
Army captain in command of Company D, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, signed
a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award).  This DA Form 638 recommended
that the award of the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device received by the
applicant for his actions on 18 and 19 March 1968 in Vietnam be upgraded to
award of the Distinguished Service Cross.  This recommendation was
processed through a Member of Congress for consideration by the Army
Decorations Board under the provision of Section 1130 of Title 10.

7.  Paragraph 20 (Achievement) of the DA Form 638 listed the following
achievements:

      a.  "When previous resupply missions had failed, [applicant's name
omitted] personally and with great risk of life, guided resupply of
surrounded unit, by standing on a skid of a helicopter and personally
dropping supplies of ammunition and medical supplies."

      b.  "After insuring resupply in spite of withering fire from ground,
[applicant's name omitted] jumped over 40 feet to the ground to join his
unit in what appeared a situation of imminently being overrun."

      c.  "During the night fighting, [applicant's name omitted] repeatedly
exposed himself to sniper and ground fire to move about the perimeter
performing the roles of platoon leader (all were either dead or evacuated)
and medic."
      d.  "At first light, [applicant's name omitted] led a rescue mission
to locate and retrieve any wounded or killed in action in spite of the
overwhelming and superior force surrounding the unit.  He personally saved
over five wounded."

8.  In addition to the DA Form 638, the following attachments were
submitted with the request by the former commander of Company D, 3rd
Battalion (Airborne), 187th Infantry:

      a.  Personal statements from the company commander, a platoon leader,
a squad leader, the company commander's RTO, and a platoon sergeant.

      b.  A newspaper article which described the activity of Company D from
the perspective of two soldiers from that unit.

      c.  Two photographs.

9.  Also included with the DA Form 638 was a proposed citation for award of
the Distinguished Service Cross:

"For heroism in ground combat against a hostile and superior force in the
Republic of Vietnam during the period 18 Mar 68 to 19 Mar 68.  FSGT [First
Sergeant] [applicant's name omitted] of Co D, 3d Bn (Abn) 187th Inf, in the
vicinity of Phuoc Vinh, Rep. Of Vn [Republic of Vietnam], during an intense
ground assault by superior North Vietnamese and Vietcom forces, sensing the
failure of all efforts to re-supply his unit in the field personally joined
the re-supply helicopter and accompanied the flight to the combat area.  To
insure that the supplied reached his unit, [applicant's name omitted]
climbed outside the helicopter in spite of intense ground fire, and
standing on the skids dropped each item into the small perimeter.  After
all supplies were safely into the perimeter, [applicant's name omitted]
jumped over 40 feet from the helicopter into the small perimeter to assist
in the defense.  During the night, [applicant's name omitted] repeatedly
exposed himself to ground fire and sniper fire as he moved about the
perimeter treating the wounded and encouraging the defenders.  At first
light, [applicant's name omitted] ignoring he surrounding forces led a
rescue mission to locate and retrieve the wounded and killed in action
saving five severely wounded members of his unit.  First Sergeant
[applicant's name omitted] personal bravery and devotion to duty were in
keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect
great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."

10.  Records show that, on 18 September 1996, a Member of Congress referred
this recommendation to the Department of the Army requesting upgrade of the
applicant's Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device to an award of the
Distinguished Service Cross.  Records also show that this recommendation
was accepted by the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Total Army Personnel
Command under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1130.
11.  Records show that, on 8 October 1996, the Military Awards Branch
forwarded the award recommendation for the Distinguished Service Cross to
the Army Decorations Board for consideration.

12.  Records show that, on 17 October 1996, the Army Decorations Board
considered the recommendation for award of the Distinguished Service Cross
to the applicant.  The Army Decorations Board unanimously determined that
the applicant's degree of action and service did not meet the criteria for
award of the Distinguished Service Cross.  Based on the recommendation of
the Army Decorations Board, the Commanding General of the U.S. Total Army
Personnel Command, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army,
determined that while the degree of the heroism did not meet the criteria
for the proposed award, it did merit approval for award of the Silver Star.
 As a result the applicant was awarded the Silver Star for his actions
during the period 18 and 19 March 1968.

13.  United States Total Army Personnel Command Permanent Orders 297-5,
dated 23 October 1996, revoked the award of the Bronze Star Medal with "V"
Device to the applicant and awarded the Silver Star to the applicant.  The
stated reason for this award was as follows:

"For gallantry in action on 18-19 March 1968.  First Sergeant [applicant's
name omitted], Company D, 3d Battalion (Airmobile), 187th Infantry,
distinguished himself in the vicinity of Phuoc Vinh, Republic of Vietnam.
The Third Brigade Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, while walking point for
Company D, made initial contact with an estimated reinforced Viet Cong
Battalion.  As the intense firefight increased in volume, Company D became
engaged and a ravaging battle resulted continuing into the night.  First
Sergeant [applicant's name omitted] had remained in Phuoc Vinh preparing
his unit for annual Inspector General's inspection.  During this time, he
had been monitoring a company radio and heard that the needed resupply
helicopter has not yet arrived.  He left for the helicopter pad, assisted
in loading the ship, and remained with the aircraft.  As the aircraft
approached the area, First Sergeant [applicant's name omitted] guided the
pilot into the small landing zone despite a heavy volume of intense
automatic and small arms fire, which the enemy directed at the incoming
ship.  After breaking down the supplies, he immediately moved about the
perimeter distributing badly needed ammunition and encouraging his
struggling men.  [Applicant's name omitted] personal bravery and devotion
to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service
and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States
Army."

14.  On 7 March 1997, several former enlisted members of Company D, 3rd
Battalion 187th Infantry, submitted a request to a Member of Congress.  In
this request, the former members of the applicant's unit requested
assistance in upgrading the applicant's award of the Silver Star to an
award of the Medal of Honor.  Included with this request was a new DA Form
638, dated 2 January 1997.
15.  Submitted with the letter to the Member of Congress was a DA Form
 638, dated 2 January 1997.  This recommendation for award was prepared by
the radio telephone operator (RTO) and communication chief of Company D on
 18 and 19 March 1968.  It recommended to the Member of Congress that the
applicant's award of the Silver Star be upgraded to a ward of the Medal of
Honor.

16.  Paragraph 20 (Achievements) of the DA Form 638 listed the following:

a.  "When previous re-supply missions had failed, [applicant's name
omitted] immediately requested the chopper to return to the re-supply
point, personally reloaded the supplies, and with great risk of his life,
guided the chopper to the surrounded unit, by standing on skids of the
helicopter and personally dropped ammunitions, medical and water supplies
to his unit in perimeter."

      b.  "After insuring re-supply in spite of withering fire from ground,
[applicant's name omitted] jumped 40 to 45 feet to the ground to join his
unit what appeared to be a situation of imminently being overrun.  He took
charge; established well-organized defense and the unit came alive."

      c.  "During the night fighting, [applicant's name omitted] repeatedly
exposed himself to sniper and ground fire and moved about performing the
role of platoon leader (all were either wounded or dead), administering
medical aid to the wounded/encouraged the weary troopers."

      d.  "At first light, [applicant's name omitted] lead a rescue mission
to locate and retrieve the wounded or killed in action, in spite of
overwhelming and superior force surrounding the unit.  He personally saved
80-85 lives by his fearless actions."

17.  In addition to the DA Form 638, the following attachments were
submitted with the request for upgrade of the award of the Silver Star:

      a.  Personal statements from the company RTO/communication chief, a
platoon sergeant, the forward observer, the second platoon RTO, the platoon
sergeant of the second platoon, the platoon leader of the second platoon,
the company commander, two squad leaders and a retired World War II Medal
of Honor recipient.

      b.  A unidentified newspaper article captioned "One Blinded, Wounded
and Blessed GI."

      c.  Two photographs  (Combat Wounded individuals, picture with general
officers).

      d.  Documents, including an extract of Section 526 of the fiscal year
1996.

18.  The proposed citation for award of the Medal of Honor was:

"For heroism in ground combat against a hostile and superior force in the
Republic of Vietnam during period 18 and 19 March 1968.  First Sergeant
[applicant's name omitted] of Co D, 3rd Bn (Abn) 187th Inf, in the vicinity
of Phuoc Vinh, Republic of Vietnam, during an intense ground assault by
superior North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces.  [Applicant's name omitted]
sensed the failure of all efforts to re-supply his unit.  He initiated and
personally loaded the re-supply for helicopter flight to the combat area.
To insure re-supplies reached his unit [applicant's name omitted] climbed
out side the helicopter in spite of intense ground fire, putting his life
in danger by standing on the skids, dropped each item of supply into the
small perimeter.  After all supplies were safely into the perimeter,
[applicant's name omitted] jumped 40-45 feet from the helicopter into small
perimeter to set-up the defense.  During the night, [applicant's name
omitted] repeatedly exposed himself to ground and sniper fire as he moved
about the perimeter to treat the wounded and encouraged the unit members.
At first light [applicant's name omitted] ignored the surrounded intense
fighting forces attempting to overrun the unit and led a rescue mission to
locate and retrieve the wounded and killed in action (5 severely wounded
and 2 dead).  80-85 unit members were saved by [applicant's name omitted]
fearless action.  First Sergeant [applicant's name omitted] personal
bravery distinguished himself in clearly visible gallantry and dauntless
courage at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while
engage in an action against an enemy of the United States, while engage in
military operations involving conflict with opposing foreign forces in
keeping with highest traditions of the military service, and reflected
great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."

19.  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.  This letter concluded
that, in view of this determination by the Army Decorations Board, the
request for upgrade was not favorably considered.

20.  On 19 February 1999, the applicant submitted a letter along with the
previously cited DA Form 638, dated 2 January 1997, to a member of
Congress. In this letter, the applicant requested assistance in upgrading
his award of the Silver Star to an award of the Medal of Honor for his
actions in Vietnam on        18 and 19 March 1968.

21.  On 26 February 1999, this Member of Congress referred the applicant's
recommendation to the Department of the Army for upgrade of the applicant's
award of the Silver Star to an award of the Medal of Honor.

22.  Records show that, on 17 March 1999, the Department of the Army,
Military Awards Branch forwarded the 2 January 1997 award recommendation to
the Army Decorations Board for consideration.

23.  On 1 April 1999, the Army Decorations Board determined that the degree
of action displayed by the applicant did not meet the strict criteria for
award of the Medal of Honor.  Based on this recommendation, the Commanding
General, United States Total Army Personnel Command, on behalf of the
Secretary of the Army, disapproved award of the Medal or Honor and affirmed
that the previously awarded Silver Star for gallantry in action was the
appropriate recognition for the applicant's actions on 18 and 19 March
1968.

24.  On 22 June 2001, the President of the Muskoke Red Stick Society
(Combat Veterans) submitted a letter to the Chief of Staff of the Army
requesting his support in the upgrading of the applicant's award of the
Silver Star to the Medal of Honor.

25.  On 13 August 2001, the Principal Chief of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation
submitted a letter to the Secretary of the Army requesting reconsideration
of the applicant's request for award of the Medal of Honor.

26.  Records show that, on 11 January 2002, a Member of Congress forwarded
a request for reconsideration to the Department of the Army.  Specifically,
the Member of Congress requested reconsideration of the decision by the
Army Decorations Board not to award the Medal of Honor to the applicant.

27.  Records show that a fourth request was made for upgrade of the
applicant's award of the Silver Star to the Medal of Honor.  A letter,
dated 10 April 2002, from the Military Awards Branch notified the
applicant's counsel that further consideration for award of the Medal of
Honor for the applicant "is not warranted."

28.  The applicant's counsel provided a citation for award of the Medal of
Honor to the commander of Company D, 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry, for his
actions on 18 and 19 March 1968. Counsel contends that this award of the
Medal of Honor to the applicant's company commander establishes precedent
in the applicant's case.  Counsel then quoted the citation for the award of
the Medal of Honor presented to the applicant's company commander.

"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his
life above and beyond the call of duty.  [Soldier's name omitted]
distinguished himself while serving as commanding officer, Company D, on a
reconnaissance-in-force mission against enemy forces near Phuoc Vinh.  The
company was inserted by helicopter into the suspected enemy stronghold to
locate and destroy the enemy. During this period [soldier's name omitted]
aggressively and courageously led his men in the destruction of enemy
fortifications and base areas and eliminated scattered resistance impeding
the advance of the company.  On 18 March while advancing to contact, the
lead elements of the company became engaged by the heavy automatic weapon,
heavy machine gun, rocket propelled grenade, Claymore mines and small-arms
fire of an estimated battalion-size force.  [Soldier's name omitted], with
complete disregard for his safety, moved to the threatened area to direct
the defense and ordered reinforcements to the aid of the lead element.
Seeing that his men were pinned down by heavy machine gun fire from a
concealed bunker located some 40 meters to the front of the positions,
[soldier's name omitted] crawled through the hail of fire to single-
handedly destroy the bunker with grenades.  During this heroic action
[soldier's name omitted] received painful shrapnel wounds.  Returning to
the perimeter, he observed that his unit could not hold its positions and
repel the human wave assaults launched by the determined enemy.  [Soldier's
name omitted] ordered the withdrawal of the unit elements and covered the
withdrawal to positions of a company perimeter from which he could direct
fire upon the charging enemy. When 1 friendly element retrieving casualties
was ambushed and cut off from the perimeter, [soldier's name omitted]
ordered them to feign death and he directed artillery fire around them.
During the night [soldier's name omitted] moved throughout the position,
distributing ammunition, providing encouragement and insuring the integrity
of the defense. He directed artillery, helicopter gunship and Air Force
gunship fire on the enemy strong points and attacking forces, marking the
positions with smoke grenades. Using flashlights in complete view of enemy
snipers, he directed the medical evacuation of 3 air-ambulance loads of
seriously wounded personnel and the helicopter supply of his company. At
daybreak [soldier's name omitted] led a rescue party to recover the dead
and wounded members of the ambushed element. During the period of intensive
combat, [soldier's name omitted], by his extraordinary heroism,
inspirational example, outstanding leadership and professional competence,
led his company in the decimation of a superior enemy force which left 156
dead on the battlefield.  His bravery and gallantry at the risk of his life
are in the highest traditions of the military service; [soldier's name
omitted] has reflected great credit on himself, his unit, and the U.S.
Army."

29.  Title 10, United States Code Section 1130 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.  The law further 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.

30.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent
part, for award of the Medal of Honor.  The Medal of Honor is awarded by
the President in the name of Congress to a person who while a member of the
Army distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and
intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of
duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  The
regulation provides that the deed performed must have been one of personal
bravery or self sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the
individual above his comrades and must have involved the risk of life.
Further, the regulation requires that “incontestable proof” of the
performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for this
decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

31.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that 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 act or acts
of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so
extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.

32.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Silver
Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy.  The required
gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have
been performed with marked distinction.  As with all personal decorations,
formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and
announcement in orders are required.

33.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in paragraph 3-1c, that the
decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which
award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander
having award approval authority.

34.  U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Memorandum, Subject: Composition and
Operations of Army Decorations and Unit Awards Boards, governs the
establishment of the Army Decorations Board and procedures followed by that
board.  In pertinent part, this memorandum directs that the Senior Army
Decorations Board will be composed of all lieutenant generals assigned to
the Department of the Army, Office of the Secretary of the Army, and the
Army Staff with the exception of the Inspector General and the Director of
the Army Staff.  The memorandum further directs that the Senior Army
Decorations Board will consider all recommendations for award of the Medal
of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross to include those submitted
under the provisions of Section 1130 of Title 10.  Furthermore, the Senior
Army Decorations Board will consist of a majority of combat arms general
officers when considering awards of the Medal of Honor and the
Distinguished Service Cross.

35.  U.S. Total Army Personnel Command Memorandum, Subject: Composition and
Operations of Army Decorations and Unit Awards Boards, governs the
establishment of the Senior Army Decorations Board and procedures followed
by that board.  This memorandum states that the Senior Army Decoration
Board will consider the recommendation for award.  There is no provision of
this memorandum or regulation which provides for a personal appearance by
the subject of the award recommendation, his counsel, witnesses or other
interested parties before the Senior Army Decorations Board.

36.  Army Regulation 15-185 governs operations of the Army Board of
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Para 2-11 of this regulation
states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.
The regulation provides that the Director of the ABCMR or the ABCMR may
grant a formal hearing before which the applicant, counsel and witnesses
may appear whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant through his counsel requests that his award of the Silver
Star be upgraded to an award of the Medal of Honor.

2.  Evidence of record indicates that the applicant's chain of command in
Vietnam had the opportunity to recommend the applicant for award of the
Medal of Honor for his actions on 18 and 19 March 1968, but elected not to
do so.  The award approval authority for the Bronze Star Medal as well as
the Silver Star, the Commanding General of the 101st Airborne Division at
the time of the action, determined that the Bronze Star Medal with "V"
Device was the appropriate recognition for the applicant's actions in
Vietnam on 18 and 19 March 1968.

3.  The applicant's company commander, who was awarded the Medal of Honor
for his heroism during the actions on 18 and 19 March 1968, recommended
upgrade of the applicant's award of the Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device
to an award of the Distinguished Service Cross, this Nation's second
highest award for heroism in combat.

4.  Additional information was provided by the applicant's company
commander and former member's of the applicant's unit which was considered
by the Army Decorations Board.  The Army Decorations Board considered the
company commander's request on 17 October 1996.  After review of the
evidence submitted, the Army Decorations Board did not recommended approval
of the Distinguished Service Cross, but did recommend approval of the
Silver Star instead.  Permanent Orders, dated 23 October 1996, were issued
awarding the applicant the Silver Star for actions in Vietnam on 18 and 19
March 1968.

5.  Records show that, since 17 October 1996, the Army Decorations Board
has considered three additional requests to upgrade the applicant's award
of the Silver Star to award of the Medal of Honor.  In each of these cases,
the Army Decorations Board has considered all of the evidence submitted and
has determined that the Silver Star is the appropriate level of recognition
for the applicant's actions in Vietnam on 18 and 19 March 1968 and that no
higher level of recognition was appropriate in the applicant's case.

6.  In their submission to the ABCMR, the applicant and his counsel contend
that the applicant's jump from a helicopter 30 to 40 feet to the ground has
not properly considered.  However, records clearly show that evidence
considered by the Army Decorations Board on 17 October 1996 and 1 April
1999 showed the height from which the applicant jumped during the action on
18 and 19 March 1968.

7.  In their submission to the ABCMR, the applicant and his counsel contend
that the applicant's actions to save the lives of fellow solders has not
been properly considered.  Evidence in this case shows that the 1996
recommendation for award of the Distinguished Service Cross indicated that
the applicant's actions resulted in saving the lives of "five severely
wounded members of his unit."

8.  The 2 January 1997 recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor to
the applicant indicated that the applicant "personally saved 80 to 85 lives
by his fearless actions."  This same number of 80 to 85 lives saved was
considered by the Army Decorations Board on 17 October 1996 and 1 April
1999.  Therefore, it is clear that this information was available to and
properly considered by the Army Decorations Board.

9.  The Army Decorations Board, composed of Army General Officers,
considered multiple requests to upgrade an award of the Silver Star to the
Medal of Honor for the applicant's actions in Vietnam.  In each case, the
Army Decorations Board determined and recommended to the Secretary of the
Army that the Silver Star was the appropriate level of recognition for the
applicant's actions on 18 and 19 March 1968 in Vietnam.  Furthermore, the
Secretary of the Army concurred with the recommendation of the Army
Decorations Board that the award of the Silver Star was appropriate in this
case.

10.  The letters from former unit members are proof of the applicant's
actions.  The fact that these former soldiers were not called to testify
does not indicate their eyewitness statements have not been taken seriously
as alleged.  It is equally clear that the Army Decorations Board considered
the evidence submitted and did not find it necessary to require additional
information or personal testimony to enable the members of the board to
render a decision.  The procedures governing the operations of the Army
Decorations Board do not provide for appearance of witnesses, but these
procedures also do not rule out that possibility if the Army Decorations
Board found it necessary to do so.

11.  The letters from former unit members are also proof of the high regard
with which subordinates, peers and superiors accorded the applicant. There
is no dispute that the applicant was a superb soldier, senior non-
commissioned officer and leader.  However, the Medal of Honor is an award
for actions in combat above and beyond the call of duty which are separate
and distinct from matters of excellence in daily performance and soldierly
reputation.

12.  Counsel asserted that the applicant's actions are consistent with
those actions in the citations for awards of the Medal of Honor posted on
the Army Center for Military History Web Page.  However, the ABCMR
considers each case individually and on its own merit.  As a result, awards
received by others or considered and awarded by other boards and
commissions are not a basis for the ABCMR to grant an award, particularly
an award of the Medal of Honor.

13.  The evidence in this case indicates that the applicant has received
fair, impartial, and full consideration several times from the Army
Decorations Board.  After review of all the facts in this case, there is no
evidence which shows that the Army Decorations Board failed to consider any
material or relevant evidence or otherwise erred in its decision not to
recommend award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant.

14.  The application to the ABCMR is very comprehensive and provides
additional statements and evidence not previously considered by the Army
Decorations Board.  However, after review of all of the evidence submitted
in this case, there is no evidence sufficient to warrant a recommendation
for award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_MM____  _MKP___  _PM_ __     DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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
for recommending that the individual concerned be awarded the Medal of
Honor.

2.  While the decision in this case is not favorable, this Board wants the
applicant, his counsel, his fellow veterans and all others concerned to
know that this action in no way diminishes the heroism and sacrifice by the
applicant in service to the United States of America.  The applicant
distinguished himself by gallantry in action on 18 and 19 March 1968 and
was awarded the Silver Star, this Nation's third highest award for valor in
combat.  Unquestionably, the applicant is a brave and highly decorated
soldier and he and all Americans should be tremendously proud of his
service in arms and the recognition accorded to him for his acts of
heroism.





            _M. K. Patterson______
                    CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004099980                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0001                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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