IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	30 July 2009  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090002601 


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 Air Medal (AM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he earned the AM for flying combat patrol missions while serving with Company E (Long Range Patrol), 20th Infantry (Airborne), in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) between October 1967 and September 1968.  He states that he recently discovered that 30 members of his unit who performed the same duties he did with less time served received the award.  He recounts some of his accomplishments and the following information from his flight records:  combat long range patrol insertion and extraction missions (helicopter time)-16 hours, long range patrol missions for visual reconnaissance-18 hours, combat fixed wing (0-1) flights-24/54 hours, and combat training flights-unknown hours.

3.  The applicant states that he believes he earned the AM for his service those many long years ago and asks only for a serious look back and addition of this award to his record and DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

4.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement with recollections of his flight record, Bronze Star Medal (BSM) orders, Silver Star (SS) orders, and a supporting third-party statement with AM orders in support of his application.


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 21 February 1966.  He was trained in and awarded the primary military occupational specialty (MOS) 11F (Infantry Operations and Intelligence Specialist) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was sergeant (SGT).

3.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in the RVN from 25 September 1967 to 24 September 1968.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) includes an entry which shows that during his RVN tour, he was assigned to Company E (Long Range Patrol), 20th Infantry (Airborne), performing duties in MOS 11B as a rifleman and senior scout observer and in MOS 11F as an assistant patrol leader.

4.  On 23 September 1968, the applicant was honorably released from active duty after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 3 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, as amended by two DD Forms 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) issued on 5 May 2008 and 9 January 2009, shows he earned the following awards:  SS, BSM, Purple Heart (PH), Army Good Conduct Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, Parachutist Badge, Expert Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, RVN Campaign Medal with Device (1960), RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars, National Defense Service Medal, and two overseas service bars.

5.  The applicant provides a statement from an individual who indicates he was assigned for duty with the applicant in the RVN and that they flew many hours on combat assaults and missions together.  He provides a copy of the orders that awarded him the AM and affirms that the applicant was also entitled to receive the award at the time but was overlooked somehow.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 3-16 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.

7.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided local U.S. Army Vietnam 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).

8.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 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" role; a Category II mission was defined as a mission performed in a "direct combat support" role; and a Category III mission was defined as one performed in an "other combat support" role.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that are prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Paragraph 2-7 states, in pertinent part, that a DD Form 214 will be reissued when two DD Forms 215 have been issued and an additional correction is required.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he is entitled to the AM and the supporting documents he submitted were carefully considered and determined to have merit.

2.  The evidence of record fails to confirm the applicant was recommended for or awarded the AM while serving on active duty.  However, the record does show he served in a unit that performed air combat assault missions on a regular basis whose members were awarded the AM for qualifying air assault missions, as evidenced by the third-party statement and orders provided which confirm a member who served with the applicant in the same MOS and on the same missions was, in fact, awarded the AM.

3.  Given the applicant's stellar combat service record, as evidenced by his receiving the SS, BSM, and PH, it is reasonable to accept the third-party statement and orders provided as sufficiently credible to corroborate the applicant's statement regarding flight missions he participated in while serving in the RVN.  Therefore, since the applicant's unit routinely participated in air assault Category I missions, it would be appropriate to award the applicant the AM and to add it to his record and DD Form 214 at this time.

4.  The evidence of record confirms that DD Forms 215 were issued to correct the applicant's original DD Form 214 on 5 May 2008 and 9 January 2009.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to issue the applicant a new DD Form 214 that incorporates all of his awards at this time.

BOARD VOTE:

____X____  ____X____  ___X_____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the Air Medal and by reissuing him a DD Form 214 that includes this and all other awards.



      ___________X______________
                 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)                                         AR20090002601



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090002601



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1