RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           17 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004657


      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. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John E. Denning               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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, correction of his records to credit
him with 117 hours of flight time and 10 months of flight pay with interest
and penalties.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, two noncommissioned officers (NCO) of
his unit unjustly took his flight benefits away due to racial prejudice.
He claims he was unjustly treated and his unit commander failed to stop the
NCOs from mistreating him.  He claims the NCOs limited his flight time as a
certified door gunner with his own M-60 machine gun.  He states that at the
time, he did not understand the impact of this action and he now requests
he receive his flight wings with appropriate clusters and flight pay of
$100.00 per month with interest from the date of his service.

3.  The applicant provides two third-party statements and his separation
document (DD Form 214) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 24 August 1967, the date of his separation from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 17 March 2005.

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 limitations 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’s record shows he was inducted into the Army and entered
active duty on 1 September 1965.  He was trained in and awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 45J (Aircraft Armament), and the highest rank
he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four (SP4).

4.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 30 October 1966 through 27
August 1967. During his RVN tour, he was assigned to Battery B, 2nd
Battalion, 20th Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division, performing duties in MOS
46J, as an aircraft armament repairer.
5.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 shows
that during his active duty tenure, the applicant earned the following
awards:  National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); Vietnam Service Medal
(VSM); Vietnam Campaign Medal (VCM); Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with
Rifle Bar; and
1 Overseas Bar.

6.  The applicant’s Military Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any flight
records, or other documents showing that he was ever in a flight status, or
that he ever performed flight duties that would have authorized him flight
pay.  Further, there are no orders on file awarding him the Air Medal.  It
is also void of any record of disciplinary actions or nonjudicial
punishment (NJP) imposed on him during his assignment in the RVN, and it
contains no pay vouchers to verify if the applicant did or did not receive
flight pay while he served in the RVN.

7.  On 24 August 1967, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing
1 year, 11 months, and 24 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214
he was issued shows that he earned the following awards during his tenure
on active duty:  NDSM; VSM; VCM, Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with
Rifle Bar; and 1 Overseas Bar.  The Air Medal is not included in the list
of awards.  He authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature in Item 32
(Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged).

8.  The applicant provides two third-party statements in support of his
application. The first is dated 23 October 2002 and the individual
indicates he served in the RVN with the applicant from March 1966 through
June 1967, and he observed the applicant serving as a door gunner and going
on missions.

9.  The second third-party statement is dated 25 January 2003, and is from
an individual who indicates he served with the applicant as a
radio/telephone operator in the RVN from January 1967 through July 1967.
He states that he and the applicant received Army Commendation Medals as
radio/telephone operators.  He further states that to the best of his
knowledge, the applicant was on flight status and was a door gunner.  He
states that he has no idea why the applicant was removed from flight
status, but he should have received the Air Medal.

10.  United States Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and
Awards) provided, in pertinent part, guidelines for award of the Air Medal.
 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 Air Medal.

11.  The USARV awards regulation further 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 same regulation further stipulates that to be recommended for
award of the Air Medal, 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 Air Medal 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was denied flight pay as a result of
racial prejudice on the part of NCOs in his unit and the supporting
documents he submitted were carefully considered.  However, while every
allegation of racial bias is taken seriously, and no action resulting from
racial prejudice would be allowed to stand, there is insufficient evidence
supporting the applicant’s assertions of racial discrimination.

2.  The veracity of the applicant’s claim that he served as a door gunner
while in the RVN and of the information contained in the supporting third-
party statements is not in question.  However, the evidence of record and
the independent evidence submitted by the applicant fails to confirm that
was assigned to a flight position authorizing flight pay, or that he
performed the necessary number and type of missions required to receive the
Air Medal.  Further, absent any flight or pay records, it is impossible to
determine if he should have received flight pay.

3.  The applicant’s MPRJ is also void of any record of disciplinary action,
to include NJP, against the applicant while he was serving in the RVN.  As
a result, there is an insufficiently evidentiary basis to conclude that he
was unjustly punished by unit NCOs or his unit commander due to racial
prejudice.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 24 August 1967.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 23 August 1970.  However, he failed to file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LE __  __JED  __  __JRM__  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 correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____Lester Echols________
                    CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004657                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/11/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1967/08/24                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |OS Rtn                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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