RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	   4 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070014691 


	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.




	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 the Air Medal (AM). 

2.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:  Third-Party Statement; a USARV Form 131 (Awards and Qualification Record (Air Medal)); Separation Document (DD Form 214); Correction to DD Form 214 (DD Form 215); and Awards Regulation Extracts.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 28 May 1970.  He was trained in and awarded the primary military occupational specialty (MOS) 98C (Traffic Analyst), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four (SP4).  

3.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 1 May 1971 through 31 March 1972.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that during his RVN tour, he was assigned to the 7th, 8th, and 256th Radio Research Field Station, performing duties in MOS 98C as a traffic analyst.  

4.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant's DA Form 20 does not include the AM in the list of awards it contains.  Item 48 (Date of Audit) shows that the applicant last audited the DA Form 20 on 8 January 1974, subsequent to his release from active duty (REFRAD) while serving in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).


5.  On 25 May 1973, the applicant was honorably REFRAD after completing 
2 years, 11 months, and 28 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:  National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); Vietnam Service Medal (VSM); Vietnam Campaign Medal (VCM); Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM); Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM); Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and Expert Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.  The AM is not included in this list of awards, and the applicant authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged) on the date of his REFRAD.  

6.  The applicant's record shows that upon his REFRAD, he transferred to the USAR, where he served until being honorably discharged, in the rank of SP4, 
on 1 May 1976.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record 
(DA Form 2-1), which was prepared on 26 February 1980, and last reviewed by the applicant on 31 March 1981, does not include the AM in the list of awards contained in Item 9 (Awards, Decorations & Campaigns).  

7.  The record shows the applicant's record was administratively corrected and a DD Form 215 was issued documenting these corrections on 30 March 1997.  The DD Form 215 amended Item 24 the applicant's original DD Form 214 by deleting the VSM and VCM; and by adding the VSM with 4 bronze service stars, RVN Campaign Medal with Device 1960, Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters, RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  The DD Form 215 also amended Item 30 (Remarks) of the original DD Form 214 by adding the entries "SERVICE IN THAILAND FROM: 26 JANUARY 1971 TO 30 APRIL 1971//NOTHING FOLLOWS."

8.  The applicant provides a statement from a retired lieutenant colonel, who indicates that during the stand-down of the 101st Airborne Division in 1971-1972, there were many administrative problems, not the least of which was the many recommendations for awards earned in combat.  He states that packing documents and other materials for shipment resulted in a serious oversight in processing recommendations for the AM due at the time of the unit's departure from the RVN.  He states that with assistance the qualification record showing the applicant's flight records on classified missions as an intelligence specialist was recovered.  He finally requests that the applicant be awarded the AM, which he claims is long overdue.  

9.  The applicant also provides a USARV Form 131 that shows he accrued 
26.5 flight hours during 27 missions performed as an Observer.  The mission types were listed as Command and Control (C&C) and Intelligence, and under the Number of Hours, his missions were not categorized as Combat Assault (CA) and were instead listed as Direct Combat Support (DCS).  

10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 3-15 contains guidance on the AM.  It states, in pertinent part, that it is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service while participating in aerial flight. The AM is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the U.S. Army, will have distinguished himself or herself by meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight. Awards may be made to recognize single acts of merit or heroism, or for meritorious service.

11.  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.  Combat missions were divided into three categories:  Category I (air assault and equally dangerous missions); Category II (support rendered a friendly force immediately before, during or immediately following a combat operation); and Category III (support of friendly forces not connected with an immediate combat operation).  

12.  The USARV awards regulation stipulated that to be recommended for 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.  A Category I mission was defined as a mission performed in a "combat assault" (CA) role; a Category II mission was defined as a mission performed in "direct combat support" (DCS) role; and a Category III mission was defined as one performed in an "other combat support" (OCS) role.  


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he is entitled to the AM, and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim.  

2.  The evidence of record fails to show the applicant was ever recommended for or awarded the AM while serving on active duty.  His DA Form 20 does not include the AM in Item 41, and it is not included in the list of awards listed on his DD Form 214.  In addition, the AM is not included in the list of awards contained in Item 9 of the applicant's DA Form 2-1, which he last reviewed on 31 March 1981, almost 8 years after he was REFRAD.  There is no indication that the applicant ever pursued this issue while he remained in military service.  

3.  The third-party statement provided from a retired lieutenant colonel, who admits time has faded his memory, opines that the failure to award the applicant the AM was the result of an administrative oversight.  However, the flight record provided by the applicant confirms he performed a total of 27 flight missions in a DCS or Category II status as an Observer.  The flight qualification record fails to document any CA or Category I missions.  As a result, the applicant failed to meet the criteria outlined in the USARV awards regulation, which required the completion of 50 Category II missions, to be eligible to be recommended for the AM.  Further, there is no indication that the applicant performed a single act of merit or heroism that would support his being awarded the AM on this basis.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief in this case. 

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.

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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




_____x ____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.