IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       10 February 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080009449 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Vietnam Service Medal.

2.  The applicant states he served in-country according to his September 1967 pay voucher.  He states that he has been diagnosed with one of the presumptive conditions related to Agent-Orange and the correction will support his service in the country of Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his September 1967 military pay voucher and a copy of his 1968 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States and entered active duty on 7 April 1966.  Following completion of training he was assigned to an infantry unit in Hawaii.

3.  Orders issued on 15 September 1967 by the 11th Infantry Brigade in Hawaii reassigned the applicant to Thailand.  The orders specifically note the applicant was to travel by military aircraft from Oahu, Hawaii to the APOD (aerial port of debarkation) in Thailand.  Item 31 (Foreign Service) on the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Personnel Qualification Record) indicates the applicant served in Thailand from 24 September 1967 to 26 March 1968.  There is no indication he ever entered the country of Vietnam.

4.  While in Thailand, the applicant was assigned to the 809th Engineer Battalion.

5.  The Military Pay Voucher submitted by the applicant in support of his request covers the period 1 through 30 September 1967.  It notes that he arrived “this sta” (this station) from Hawaii on 24 September 1967, that he was in transit in September 1967, and in “Combat Zone for Sep67.”  The voucher also notes the applicant was paid foreign duty pay effective 24 September through
30 September 1967 amounting to less than $5.00.  The voucher does not reflect award of any “Incentive/Special Pay.”

6.  The applicant returned to the United States in March 1968 and was released from active duty on 28 March 1968 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his remaining Reserve obligation.  His separation document does not reflect entitlement to any decorations normally associated with service in Vietnam, nor is there any indication on his separation document that he was in Vietnam.

7.  The Department of Defense (DoD) Financial Management Regulation notes that foreign duty pay is payable to enlisted members otherwise entitled to basic pay who are assigned to duty at certain places outside the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, as designated by the Secretary of Defense.  Foreign duty pay was authorized for enlisted Soldiers assigned to Thailand between 
1 October 1963 and 31 March 1987.

8.  The Department of Defense (DoD) Financial Management Regulation notes that Hostile Fire Pay (HFP) and Imminent Danger Pay (IDP) are considered Incentive and Special Pay.  HFP is payable when, as certified by the appropriate commander, a member is subjected to hostile fire or explosion of a hostile mine, or on duty in an area in close proximity to a hostile fire incident and the member 
is in danger of being exposed to the same dangers actually experienced by other 
Service members subjected to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines, or killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action.  IDP is payable when a member is on official duty in a designated IDP area.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Vietnam Service Medal.  This medal is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973.  Members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia, or the airspace there over, during the same period and serving in direct support of operations in Vietnam are also eligible for this award.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence confirming the applicant was ever in Vietnam.  Contrary to his belief, his September 1967 Military Payment Voucher does not confirm he "served in-country" in Vietnam, but rather his entitlement to foreign duty pay was based on his assignment in Thailand.

2.  Soldiers who served in Thailand in direct support of operations in Vietnam were eligible for Vietnam Service Medal.  Unfortunately, there is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any which confirms the 809th Engineer Battalion provided that direct support.  In the absence of such evidence to the contrary, there is no basis for award of the Vietnam Service Medal in this case.

3.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request

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.



      ________xx______________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080009449



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080009449



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1