BOARD DATE:	  27 August 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090004517


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 that he be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, or in the alternative, that he be awarded the Air Medal with “V” Device.

2.  The applicant states, on 24 March 1971, he performed duties as a helicopter crew chief and door gunner aboard a UH-1 helicopter engaged in an insertion mission northwest of Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.  The mission was very hazardous because of the high volume of enemy anti-aircraft fire.  Many aircraft were involved in the mission and several were shot down with loss of crews.  Officer and warrant officer pilots were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross while enlisted crewmembers were awarded the Air Medal with “V” Device.

3.  The applicant states he was wounded during the 24 March 1971 mission and received the Purple Heart, but he never received either the Distinguished Flying Cross or the Air Medal with “V” Device.  He submitted a request to the US Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Alexandria, VA under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. §1130; however, HRC erroneously treated it as a request for upgrade of an already awarded Air Medal with “V” device to a Distinguished Flying Cross and denied it.

4.  The applicant provides:

	a.  copies of Congressional correspondence to the applicant,  dated 14 and 21 August 2006;

	b.  a copy of a 24 July 2006 letter from Military Awards Branch, HRC, Alexandria, VA  to a Member of Congress stating insufficient evidence was provided to warrant approving the applicant’s request to upgrade his Air Medal with “V” Device to a Distinguished Flying Cross under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. §1130 [this was an incorrect response as the applicant did not have an Air Medal with “V” Device and was not asking for an upgrade; he was asking for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross];

	c.  a 29 June 2006 letter from the National Personnel Records Center to a Member of Congress;

	d.  a 15 May 2006 letter from a retired chief warrant officer to a Member of Congress;

	e.  a copy of a privacy act release form;

	f.  a copy of a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 15 May 2006, and recommending the applicant be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (First Oak Leaf Cluster);

	g.  a copy of the proposed citation for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross with a list of attachments;

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.  On 28 April 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and training in Army Career Group 67 (Aircraft Maintenance).  He served through one reenlistment on 20 May 1971 and was honorably discharged on 17 February 1978.

3.  The applicant served in Vietnam on two occasions, first from 18 December 1970 through 4 October 1971, then from 28 April 1972 through 20 June 1972.

4.  The applicant’s records show he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Purple Heart [for wounds received on 24 March 1971], Air Medal with Numeral 15, Army Commendation Medal, Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award), Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and Distinguished Flying Cross [for acts occurring on 3 March 1971].

5.  On 24 March 1971, the applicant’s unit, 71st Aviation Company, 14th Combat Aviation Battalion, 23rd infantry Division, was involved in an operation northwest of Khe Sanh, near the border with Laos and North Vietnam.  During the operation, several aircraft were shot down, necessitating the insertion of ground troops to secure the crash sites and extract survivors.  The applicant served as a crew chief/gunner on one UH-1 during the operation and, despite being wounded, he continued with the mission, helping to return his aircraft to base.

6.  On conclusion of the operations, the Brigade Aviation Officer recommended all concerned be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.  In his contemporaneous statement, he said:

At approximately 1815 hours on 24 March 1971, a heavy scout team from C Troop, 2nd of the 17th Cav contacted a large enemy force in the vicinity of coordinates XD 6748.  One scout aircraft was shot down.  The second scout aircraft maneuvered to determine the fate of the first aircraft and was also shot down.  A UH-1H attempted to land elements of the aerial rifle platoon in the vicinity and was also shot down.  An AH-1G, attempting to suppress the area, was virtually destroyed by fire from two .51 caliber gun positions.  A rifle company was alerted to move and the 71st Assault Helicopter Company, which was supporting the brigade, were out on 10 separate support missions.  I issued an alert call on the company UHF for all aircraft to assemble for an emergency combat assault.  Within 20 minutes, the entire flight was assembled and loaded with troops.  These troops were inserted in the vicinity of the downed aircraft in the face of extremely heavy enemy fire.  Three of the lift ships sustained disabling hits during the insertion but completed the mission and limped back to B Med at Khe Sahn [sic] to drop off their wounded.  Some of these crews eventually obtained replacement aircraft and rejoined the action.  At about the same time that the first insertion was taking place, a platoon from the 4th of the 3d encountered extremely heavy contact in an area approximately 40 kilometers away.  It was readily apparent that reinforcements were necessary to prevent annihilation of this small unit.  The flight was contacted and diverted in the air to the Pick-up Zone where they airlifted a platoon sized element into the second contact area.  This was accomplished under heavy fire.  The troops in the first contact area were again so heavily engaged that it was necessary to redirect the flight to reinforce the ground troops which were inserted earlier.  This was accomplished expeditiously and the flight refueled, rearmed, and then returned to the second contact area to finish the insertion there.  By this time the ground force had reached the downed aircraft in the first contact area, so the flight was called in to extract the dead and wounded.  After this was completed, they extracted the company.  The hostile fire was so heavy that 6 gunships were used continuously to cover the aircraft going into and coming out of the Landing Zone. Even though sustaining hits each time, the crews continued repeatly [sic] until all personnel were extracted.  One helicopter, Rattler 11 and crew, was particularly noteworthy.  His helicopter sustained so many hits that it was literally shot down in flames.  The pilot, skillfully, guided the burning aircraft to a stream bed and sat it down in such a manner, that no one was injured.  The entire flight, throughout the day, demonstrated courage and a sence [sic] of urgency that credits the United States Army’s airmobility concept.  It is difficult to single out individual acts of heroism since the entire flight was one continuous heroic endeavor from morning till night.  I recommend that every crewmember, involved in this action, be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his contribution to an effort that undoubtedly averted two disasters.

7.  During the processing of this case, a member for the Board staff reviewed the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS) maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the United States Army Human Resources Command (HRC), which is an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973.  This review revealed several members of the 71st Aviation Company received awards for actions taken on 24 March 1971.  Distinguished Flying Crosses were awarded to officer and warrant officer personnel and Air Medals with “V” Devices were awarded to enlisted personnel.  No orders were found pertaining to the applicant.

8.  In the late 1990’s, the Military Awards Branch. US Total Army Personnel Command, Alexandria, VA (now HRC-Alexandria) awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses to warrant officer personnel of the 71st Aviation Company for heroism on 24 March 1971.  Awards were made under the provisions of Paragraph 3-11, Army Regulation 600-8-22 and Section 522, Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act.

9.  On 15 May 2006, the applicant’s former platoon leader, who was a warrant officer pilot in the 71st Aviation Company, submitted a DA Form 638 through a Member of Congress to HRC-Alexandria under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. §1130 recommending the applicant for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (1st Oak Leaf Cluster) for his role in the events of 24 March 1971 near Khe Sanh. The Military Awards Branch mistakenly reviewed the request as being to upgrade an already awarded Air Medal with “V” Device to the Distinguished Flying Cross and denied the upgrade for insufficient documentation.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army of the United States, distinguished himself or herself by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight.  The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from his or her comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.  Awards will be made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained operational activities against an armed enemy.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Air Medal (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 is required.  When awarded for heroism, the “V” Device is also awarded.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests the Distinguished Flying Cross, or in the alternative, the Air Medal with “V” Device for his role in the events of 24 March 1971 northwest of Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.

2.  The applicant was a member of the 71st Aviation Company in Vietnam in 1971.  On 24 March 1971, he flew with his unit as a helicopter crew chief and door gunner on a mission to insert infantry and extract downed aviators.  The mission was extremely hazardous and the applicant was wounded during the mission.

3.  Many aviators, both officer/warrant officer and enlisted, were cited for bravery during that 24 March 1971 mission.  Officer personnel received Distinguished Flying Crosses and enlisted personnel received Air Medals with “V” Devices.  The applicant was not among those cited.

4.  Some 25 years after the fact, the Army recognized a number of other members of the 71st Aviation Company with awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross or the Air Medal with “V” Device.  In 2005, the applicant submitted, through his Member of Congress, a request for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross under 10 U.S.C. §1130.  The US Army Human Resources Command misinterpreted the request and denied an upgrade from an Air Medal with “V” Device to a Distinguished Flying Cross.  Had the request been properly considered, HRC would have, most likely, downgraded the Distinguished Flying Cross to an award of the Air Medal with “V” Device.  This would have been in keeping with what the Army had already done in previous cases.

5.  Given the awarding of Air Medals with “V” Devices to several other enlisted aircraft crewmembers for their actions on 24 March 1971, it would be just and equitable to award the applicant the same decoration.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___x____  ____x___  __x_____  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.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  awarding him the Air Medal with “V” Device for heroism in connection with aerial flight on 24 March 1971 in the Republic of Vietnam; and

	b.  adding the Air Medal with “V” Device to his DD Form 214.



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 award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20090004517





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090004517



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1