RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010567


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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, award of a second Purple Heart (PH)
and of 43 awards of the Air Medal (AM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he received a PH for being wounded in
action in January 1968, which is included in his record and on his
separation document (DD Form 214), but did not receive a second PH for an
incident that occurred on 19 September 1967, when he was flying a
helicopter gunship in the An Loc valley in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).
He claims that during this action, the helicopter was hit by several rounds
and lost power, and as a result they crashed and the helicopter was
destroyed.  He states that he and his gunner were cut up in the crash and
he had sustained a bullet wound while running across a rice paddy on the
ground.  He states he and his gunner were evacuated and treated for their
wounds at the 616th medical company.  He states he was released on 22
September and returned to have sutures removed on the 25th of September.
He claims he was never awarded the PH for the 19 September 1967 incident,
and apparently it slipped through the cracks.

3.  The applicant also states, in effect, he should have received awards of
the AM for every 25 hours of combat flight time in the RVN, and that he
accrued 1,088 hours of combat flight time, which should equate to 43 awards
of the AM.  He claims part of the confusion was that he received two awards
of the AM for heroism with the "V" (Valor) Device.

4.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Request Statement; PH Narrative for 19
September 1967 Incident; Chronological Records of Medical Care (SFs 600)
for 22 September 1967 and for 25 September 1967 through 11 June 1968;
Narrative for 7 January 1967 PH; and PH Orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 10 December 1969, the date of his separation.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 13 July 2006.

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 that he initially enlisted in the Regular
Army and entered active duty as a warrant officer candidate on 24 January
1966.  He completed basic combat training and the warrant officer flight
course and was honorably discharged on 13 February 1967, for the purpose of
accepting a warrant officer appointment.

4.  On 14 February 1967, he was appointed a warrant officer and entered
active duty in that status.  His Officer Qualification Record (DA Form 66)
shows that he served in the RVN from 6 April 1967 through 3 April 1968, and
that during his RVN tour he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters
Company, 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, performing duties in military
occupational specialty (MOS) 062B as a rotary wing helicopter pilot.

5.  Item 21 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant's DA Form 66 shows
that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards:  Army
Aviator Badge; National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); Army Good Conduct
Medal(AGCM); Vietnam Service Medal (VSM); AM 1st Oak Leaf Cluster with
"V" Device; Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with "V" Device; Distinguished
Flying Cross (DFC); Bronze Star Medal (BSM) ; PH; and Meritorious Unit
Commendation (MUC).  A second award of the PH is not included in the list
of authorized awards contained in Item 21 and the applicant last audited
this record on 14 March 1969.

6.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains
Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) General Orders (GO) Number
(#) 3507, dated 26 June 1967.  These orders awarded the applicant the AM
for the period 23 April through 2 May 1967.  It also contains Headquarters,
1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) GO # 7614, dated 8 July 1968, which
awarded the applicant the AM 1st Oak Leaf Cluster with "V" Device for
heroism on 9 November 1967.

7.  The applicant's MPRJ also contains Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division
(Airmobile) GO # 529, dated 23 January 1968, which awarded the applicant
the PH for being wounded in action in the RVN on 7 January 1968.  It does
not include orders that awarded a second or subsequent PH.

8.  On 10 December 1969, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing a total of 3 years, 10 months, and 17 days of active military
service.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations
and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the DD Form 214 he was
issued at the time shows he earned the following awards during his active
duty tenure:  NDSM; VSM; RVN Campaign Medal; Army Aviator Badge; AM 1st Oak
Leaf Cluster with "V" Device; ARCOM with "V" Device; DFC; BSM; PH; MUC;
AGCM; and 2 Overseas Bars.  The applicant authenticated this document with
his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or
Discharged) on the date of his separation.

9.  The applicant provides a narrative outlining the circumstances
surrounding his being wounded in action in the RVN on 19 September 1967.
In it, he claims he received cuts and lacerations when his helicopter was
hit by enemy fire and crashed and that he sustained a bullet wound to the
leg after reaching the ground.  He also states he was treated for these
wounds at the 616th Medical Company in the RVN and he provides SFs 600,
which he claims documents this treatment.  The SFs 600 provided by the
applicant confirm he was treated for lacerations to his face and leg on 22
September 1967, and that the sutures he received for these lacerations were
removed on 25 September 1967.  The medical treatment documents are void of
any indication that these lacerations were received as a result of enemy
action, or that they were combat related.

10.  The applicant also provides a DA Form 759, dated March 1968, which
contains a Section II (Summary of Pilot Experience) that shows he accrued a
total of 1088 hours of pilot combat time.

11.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff
reviewed the unit historical records of the applicant's unit, which are
maintained at the National Archives.  This review failed to produce
evidence showing that the applicant was wounded in action in the RVN on 19
September 1967.

12.  A member of the Board staff also reviewed the Department of the Army
(DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster.  This reviewed revealed an entry pertaining
to the applicant that confirms he was wounded in action in the RVN on 7
January 1967; however, there is no entry showing he was wounded in action
in September 1967.
13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and
criteria concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 2-8 contains the
regulatory guidance pertaining to award of the PH.  It states, in pertinent
part, that in order to award a PH there must be evidence that the wound for
which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the
wound must have required medical treatment and the medical treatment must
have been made a matter of official record.

14.  Paragraph 2-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the VSM.
It states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with
this award for each campaign a member is credited with participating in
while serving in the RVN.  Table B-1 contains a list of RVN campaigns and
shows that during the applicant's tenure of assignment in the RVN,
participation credit was granted for the Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase II,
Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase III, TET Counteroffensive 1968, and Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phase IV campaigns.

15.  Paragraph 6-5 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the "V"
Device. It states, in pertinent part, that it is worn to denote
participation in acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy.
It was originally worn only on the suspension and service ribbons of the
Bronze Star Medal to denote an award made for heroism (valor).  Effective
29 February 1964, the "V" device was also authorized for wear on the Air
Medal and Army Commendation Medal for heroic acts or valorous deeds not
warranting awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross or the Bronze Star
Medal with "V" device.  In the case of multiple "V" Devices for the same
award, only one "V" device is worn on the service ribbon.

16.  Paragraph 3-16 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains guidance on the
AM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the AM is awarded in time of war
for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service while participating
in aerial flight.  This award is primarily intended for personnel on flying
status, but may also be awarded to those personnel whose combat duties
require them to fly, for example personnel in the attack elements of units
involved in air-land assaults against an armed enemy.  As with all personal
decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command,
and announcement in orders are required.  Under current regulatory
guidance, Numerals starting with the numeral 2, as opposed to Oak Leaf
Clusters are used to denote second and subsequent awards of the AM.

17.  U.S. 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.

18.  The USARV awards regulation divided combat missions 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.

19.  The USARV awards regulation stated, in effect, that to support 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.

20.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit
Register) establishes the eligibility of individual members for campaign
participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges
awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  It confirms that during his tenure of
assignment in the RVN, the applicant’s unit (HHC, 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry
Division) earned the Valorous Unit Award (VUA) for the period 1 through 31
October 1967 and RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period
9 August 1965 through 19 May 1969.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he is entitled to a second award of the
PH has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence
to support this claim.  By regulation, in order to support award of the PH
there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was
received as a result of enemy action.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was treated for
lacerations to his face and leg on 22 September 1967; however, the medical
treatment records provided by the applicant fail to outline the
circumstances under which these injuries were received.  Although the
record confirms he was awarded the PH for being wounded in action in the
RVN on 7 January 1968, his record is void of any orders or other documents
that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH for being
wounded in action in the RVN in September 1967.  A second award of the PH
is not included in Item 21 of his DA Form 66, which he last audited on 14
March 1969, almost a year after he departed the RVN, and a second PH is not
included in Item 24 of his DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his
signature on the date of his separation.

3.  Further, a review of the historical records maintained at the National
Archives failed to show he was wounded in action in the RVN in September
1967, or that he was awarded a second PH.  An entry on the Vietnam Casualty
Roster confirms he was wounded in action in the RVN on 7 January 1968;
however, there is no entry on this official DA list of RVN battle
casualties that indicates he was wounded in action in the RVN in September
1967.

4.  The veracity of the applicant's claim that he was received lacerations
to his face and leg in September 1967, while serving in the RVN, is not in
question.  However, absent any evidence of record corroborating his claim
that these lacerations were received as a result of enemy action, the
regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not
been satisfied in this case.

5.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant accrued 1088 hours of
combat flight time in the RVN.  Given these flight hours were accrued with
an
Airmobile combat division, it is presumed they were flown on Category 1
missions, which supports 43 awards of the AM.  Further, the record confirms
he was awarded the AM with "V" Device for heroism on 9 November 1967.  As a
result, it would be appropriate to correct his record to show his
entitlement to
AM with Numeral 44 and "V" Device.

6.  The record also shows that based on his service and campaign
participation in the RVN, he is entitled to the VUA, RVN Gallantry Cross
with Palm Unit Citations, and 4 bronze service stars with his VSM.  Thus,
it would also be appropriate to add these awards to his record and
separation document.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___KAN_  __DKH __  __LMD__  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 showing his entitlement
to the Air Medal with Numeral 44 and "V" Device, Valorous Unit Award,
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and 4 bronze
service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal; and by providing him a
correction to his separation document that includes these awards.

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
the second award of the Purple Heart.




                            _____Kathleen A. Newman_____
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060010567                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/20                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/12/10                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-100                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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