RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	   


	BOARD DATE:	  28 June 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070001902 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John T. Meixell

Chairperson

Mr. William F. Crain

Member

Mr. Dean A. Camarella

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 correction of his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) to show award of the Air Medal and Bronze Star Medal, and to show only one oak leaf cluster on his Army Commendation Medal with “V” Device.

2.  The applicant states that these awards are missing from his DD Form 214.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and a certificate for award of the Air Medal.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 15 December 1971, the date of his release from active duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 1 February 2007.

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 requests correction of his records to show award of the Bronze Star Medal.  There are no orders or other evidence authorizing award of the Bronze Star Medal to the applicant.  In the absence of a proper award authority for this decoration, the applicant may request award of the Bronze Star Medal under the provisions of Section 1130 of Title 10, United States Code.  The applicant has been notified by separate correspondence of the procedures for applying for this decoration under Section 1130 and, as a result, it will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings. 

4.  On 20 February 1970, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B1O (Light Weapons Infantryman).

5.  On 17 July 1970, the applicant was assigned for duty as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, in the Republic of Vietnam.

6.  General Orders Number 21392, 1st Cavalry Division, dated 10 December 1970, awarded the applicant the Army Commendation Medal with “V” Device for heroism in connection with military operations against a hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam.

7.  General Orders Number 2449, 1st Cavalry Division, dated 7 February 1971, awarded the applicant the Air Medal for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight in the Republic of Vietnam. 

8.  General Orders Number 4179, 1st Cavalry Division, dated 28 February 1971, awarded the applicant the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile enemy force in the Republic of Vietnam.

9.  General Orders Number 5739, 1st Cavalry Division, dated 18 March 1971, awarded the applicant the Army Commendation Medal with “V” Device for heroism in connection with military operations against a hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam.

10.  On 22 March 1971, the applicant was assigned for duty as a rifleman with the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. 

11.  On 12 July 1971, the applicant was returned to the United States for duty at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.

12.  On 15 December 1971, the applicant was released from active duty.  He had attained the rank of specialist four, pay grade E4 and had completed 1 year, 
9 months and 26 days of creditable active duty.

13.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214, lists his awards as the National Defense Service Medal, , Army Commendation Medal with “V” Device and two oak leaf clusters, Combat Infantryman Badge, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal with "1960" Device, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Machinegun and Pistol Bars and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  It does not show award of the Bronze Star Medal. 

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for the award of the Army Commendation Medal. It states that in the case of multiple “V” Devices for the same award, only one “V” Device is worn on a service ribbon. Oak leaf clusters are awarded for second and subsequent awards of decorations.

15.  Review of the applicant's records indicates entitlement to additional awards and decorations that are not shown on his DD Form 214.

16.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that his conduct and efficiency were excellent.  Review of his records found no evidence of any convictions by court-martial or action taken by the commander to deny him the Army Good Conduct Medal.

17.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who had completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  The enlisted person must have had all “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.  Ratings of "Unknown" for 
portions of the period under consideration are not disqualifying.  Service and efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 are not disqualifying.  

18.  Appendix B of Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that based on the applicant's dates of service in the Republic of Vietnam, he participated in the following two campaign periods: the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase VII and the Consolidation I.  This same regulation states that a bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign.  

19.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in the Republic of Vietnam.  This publication shows that the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, during the time of the applicant's assignment, was cited in general orders for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  General Orders show that the applicant was awarded the Air Medal for meritorious achievement.  Therefore, his records should be corrected to show this award.
2.   The evidence of record shows that the applicant was awarded three Army Commendation Medals, two of which were for heroism.  Regulatory guidance provides that oak leaf clusters will denote second and subsequent awards of decorations.  The “V” Device denotes heroism in connection with one or more [emphasis added] of the total number of awards.  In the applicant’s case, his 
DD Form 214 correctly shows that he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal with “V” Device and two Oak Leaf Clusters. Therefore, the applicant’s request to remove one oak leaf cluster should not be granted.

3.  The applicant’s records clearly show that he distinguished himself in the performance of his duties during a qualifying period of enlisted active Federal military service.  Therefore, it is presumed that his not receiving an Army Good Conduct Medal for his service was an oversight.  Accordingly, he should be awarded this medal.

4.  Records show that the applicant participated in two campaign periods during his service in the Republic of Vietnam.  Therefore, he is eligible for award of two bronze service stars to be affixed to his Vietnam Service Medal.

5.  General Orders show that the applicant's unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.  Therefore, his records should be corrected to show this foreign unit award.   

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 15 December 1971; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
14 December 1974.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations; however, based on the available evidence or argument, it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___JTM __  __DAC__  __WFC    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:

	a.  awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period from 
20 February 1970 to 15 December 1971; and

	b.  showing that, in addition to the awards shown on his DD Form 214, his authorized awards include the Air Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, two bronze service stars to be affixed to his Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

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 removal of one oak leaf cluster from his Army Commendation Medal.  




______ John T. Meixell _
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070001902      
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
 20070628
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
. . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
107
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.