RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  19 June 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012855 


	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.


x

	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 Purple Heart (PH), Air Medal (AM), Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), and Air Assault Badge (AAB).   

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), he was assigned to the 48th Assault Helicopter Company and volunteered to be a door gunner on a helicopter.  He states that at the time, there was a great need for door gunners due to their life expectancy; however, knowing this, he willfully spent the remainder of his tour as a helicopter gunner.  He also states that in January 1969, his helicopter crashed and he sustained injuries to his face, back and legs.  He claims that he has repeatedly attempted to file claims to get his AAB, AM, ARCOM, and PH with no success.  He states that he feels he gave his best to his country and its people by being unselfish and willing to give up his life, which he almost did, for his country, but he has nothing to show for it.  He further states that like a fool, he volunteered to be a door gunner putting his own life at more risk and almost getting killed in a crash just to have the Board tell him he does not deserve the AAB, AM, ARCOM, or PH and he is now asking reconsideration of his request for these awards.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:  Self-Authored Letter; Third Party Statement; Army Board for Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) Proceedings AR 20050010940; Separation Document (DD Form 214); Vietnam Helicopter Crew Member Association Information Sheets; Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Fayette County Letter, dated 
14 June 2006; Self-Authored Letter to Senator; dated 14 June 2006;
 48th Aviation Company Letter of Commendation, dated 8 February 1970; 
286th Medical Detachment Medical Clearance for Flying; Headquarters, 
10th Aviation Battalion, Special Orders Number 25, dated 26 January 1970; VA Letter, dated 16 April 1973; Medical Treatment Records; and Photographs.

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 AR20050010940 on 25 April 2006.

2.  During its original review of the applicant's case, the Board found no evidence of record that showed the applicant was wounded or injured as a result of enemy action or that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty.  
3.  The Board further found that there was no evidence showing the applicant had been recommended for or awarded the AAB, ARCOM, or AM by the proper authority while serving on active duty.

4.  The applicant provides a Third-Party statement from a Soldier who served with him and who was also assigned to the 48th Assault Helicopter Company in the RVN as a door gunner as new evidence.  This individual states they went out on dangerous missions just about every day and that on one day while on a 
re-supply mission, he was flying in one helicopter and the applicant in another.  He indicates they had to land on top of mountain on a narrow ridge.  As the applicant's helicopter was coming in to land a down draft caught the helicopter causing it to fall about 200 feet crashing into the mountain.  He further states that his crew landed their helicopter and ran down the hill to help the four crew members in the crashed helicopter.  He further states that the applicant complained about an injury to his back and another Soldier sprained his ankle.  

5.  The applicant's records show he was initially inducted into the Army of the United States and entered active duty on 8 August 1968.  His Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows, in Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties), that he was awarded MOS 76P (Stock Control & Accounting Specialist) on 22 November 1968 and MOS 76R (Missile Repair Parts Specialist) on 10 January 1969.  It also shows that he served in the RVN from 12 February 1969 through 11 February 1970.  

6.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows that during his service in the RVN, he was assigned to Company E, United States Army Depot, performing duties in MOS 71B as a clerk typist from 15 February 1969 through 9 September 1969; and to the 48th Aviation Company (Assault Helicopter) performing duties in MOS 67A as a machine gunner from 
18 September 1969 through 10 February 1970.  Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and the PH is not included in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations).  The applicant last audited the DA Form 20 on 20 March 1970.  

7.  The applicant's DA Form 20 is void of any entries indicating he was ever awarded MOS 67A (Helicopter Repairer) and his MPRJ is void of any orders or other documents that indicate he ever attended or completed training in, or was awarded a 67 (Aviation) MOS during his active duty tenure.  

8.  The applicant's MPRJ contains a Chronological Record of Medical Care 
(SF 600).  This document states the applicant was in an air craft accident during which the aircraft rolled over causing him to sustain small scratches to his chin and nose.

9. The applicant's MPRJ also contains Headquarters, 10th Aviation Battalion (Combat), Special Orders Number 25, dated 26 January 1970.  These orders directed his reassignment to the Continental United States (CONUS).  The standard name line of these orders lists the applicant's unit of assignment as the 48th Aviation Company (Assault Helicopter) and his MOS as 76R.

10.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no orders, or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty. It does contain Clinical Record Consultation Sheets (SF 513), dated 19 August 1970 and 9 June 1971, which show he was treated for an injury to his right knee after he was involved in a helicopter crash in January 1970.  These medical treatment records give no indication that the helicopter accident and/or the applicant's knee injury were the result of or caused by enemy action.  

11.  The applicant's MPRJ is also void of flight records documenting his accrued flight time while serving in the RVN, or that identifies the specific categories of missions he may have participated in while serving in the RVN.  His MPRJ is void of any orders or other documents showing he was ever recommended for or awarded the AM by proper authority, or that he was ever recommended for, or awarded the ARCOM by proper authority while serving on active duty.  

12.  On 13 August 1971, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) after completing 3 years and 6 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued contains the entry 76R (Missile Repair Parts Specialist) in Item 23a (Military Occupational Specialty and Number).  

13.  The applicant's DD Form 214 also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with 
3 bronze service stars, RVN Campaign Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  Item 25 (Education and Training Completed) contains an entry confirming his successful completion of the MOS 76P Stock Control & Accounting Specialist Course in 1968 and  the MOS 76R Missile Repair Parts Specialist Course in 1969, at Fort Lee, Virginia.
The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged) on the date of his separation.  

14.  On 29 September 2006, a DD Form 215 was issued to the applicant that added the Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze service stars, 2 Overseas Bars, Meritorious Unit Commendation, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation Badge, and Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Gold Star Unit Citation Badge to the list of awards contained on his DD Form 214.  
15.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff reviewed the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster.  The applicant's name was not included on this casualty list.  The staff member also reviewed the DA Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS); however, there were no orders in this file indicating the applicant had been awarded the AM, PH, ARCOM, or AAB while serving on active duty.

16.  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 awarding the PH.  It states, in pertinent part, that the PH is awarded to any member who has been wounded or killed in action. The awards regulation defines a wound as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under conditions defined by this regulation.  In order to support awarding a member the PH, it is necessary to establish that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a direct result of, or was caused by enemy action, the wound required treatment by a medical officer.  This treatment must be supported by records of medical treatment for the wound or injury received in action, and must have been made a matter of official record. 

17.  Paragraph 3-15, 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.

18.  United States Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided local USARV awards policy.  It also established guidelines for award of the AM in the RVN.  It defined terms and provided guidelines for the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours.  It states, in pertinent part, that Category I missions required accrual of 25 hours of flight time to support award of the AM.  Category II missions required accrual of 50 hours of flight time for the AM and Category III missions required accrual of 100 hours of flight time for the AM.  The regulation also stipulated that flight records would be maintained to document the category of missions and flight hours accrued by members on flight crew and non-crew status.  


19.  Paragraph 3-16 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the ARCOM. It states, in pertinent part, that it is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  Paragraph 3-18 contains guidance on award recommendations.  It states, in pertinent part, that individual awards, which includes the ARCOM, require recommendations be initiated on a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), which must be approved by the proper authority and announced in official orders.    

20.  Paragraph 8-23 of the awards regulation provides guidance on award of the AAB.  It states, in pertinent part, that it is authorized to members who satisfactorily completed an air assault training course that complies with United States Army Training and Doctrine Command standardized Air Assault Core Program of Instruction, or who completed the standard Air Assault Course while assigned or attached to 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) after 1 April 1974, there are no provisions provided that allow retroactive award of this badge.    

21.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Paragraph 52 of the regulation in effect at the time contained guidance on MOS entries in Item 23a.  It stated, in effect, that the MOS code number and title contained on the DA Form 20 would be entered in Item 23a of the DD Form 214.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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 or was caused by enemy action, that it required treatment by military medical personnel, and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. 

2.  The evidence of record includes medical treatment records that show the applicant was treated for a knee injury after a helicopter accident while serving in the RVN.  However, these treatment records do not indicate the helicopter accident or knee injury were the direct result of, or caused by enemy action.  Further, the third-party statement of another Soldier provided by the applicant indicates the helicopter accident occurred while they were on a resupply mission and resulted from a down-draft occurring during landing.  It does not indicate that the accident was the result of or caused by enemy action.  
3.  Further, the applicant's record is void of any orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty.  The veracity of the applicant's claim that he was injured in the RVN and of the information contained in the third-party statement he provided is not in question.  However, absent any evidence that indicates the helicopter crash and resultant knee injury were the result of or caused by enemy action, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has still not been satisfied in this case.  

4.  The applicant's claim of entitlement to the AM, AAB and ARCOM was also carefully considered.  However, the record is void of any orders or other documents showing that the applicant was ever recommended for or awarded any of these decorations by proper authority while serving on active duty, and there are no orders on these awards documented on the DA ADCARS list.  In addition, there are no flight records on file documenting the category of missions and flight hours completed by the applicant while serving in the RVN.  There is also no record entries indicating that he ever held an Aviation MOS or that he completed an authorized Air Assault course during his active duty tenure that would have entitled him to the AAB, and there are no documents on file that show he was ever recommended for or awarded the ARCOM while serving on active duty.  

5.  Further, none of the requested awards are contained on the applicant's 
DA Form 20, which he last audited in March 1970, after he completed his RVN tour of duty nor are they included in the list of awards contained on his DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature on the date of his separation.  In effect, his audit of the DA Form 20 was his verification that the information on the record, to include the awards entries, was correct at that time; and his signature on the DD Form 214 was his verification that the information contained on the separation document, to include the list of awards, was correct at that time.  Therefore, absent any evidence of record that shows he was ever recommended for or awarded any of the decorations in question by proper authority while serving on active duty, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support authorizing him any of these awards at this late date. 

6.  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 or that would support amendment of the original ABCMR decision in this case.  


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x__  __x __  __x__  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 AR20050010940, dated 25 April 2006.




_____x______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012855
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/06/19
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
1971/08/13
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.
107
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.