BOARD DATE:	  10 September 2009.

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090009101 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request for award of the Vietnam Service Medal.

2.  The applicant states that his service in Korat, Thailand, should be recognized as "in direct support of operations in Vietnam."  He adds that many activities that occurred in Thailand in 1965 and 1966 were classified.  He also adds that his Officer Evaluation Report was prepared in such a manner so as not to violate this trust and in doing so it did not reveal his involvement with the Vietnam operations.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, dated 8 April 2009; a copy of the DA Form 1 (Morning Report) for the 4th Maintenance Battalion, dated 27 January 1966; a statement of support, dated 22 November 2008; a copy of his previously submitted DA Form 67-5 (U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report) for the period 27 September 1965 through 24 January 1966; a copy of his previously submitted DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record); a copy of his previously submitted Letter Orders 11-14, issued by Headquarters, 71st Ordnance Group, dated 12 November 1965; and a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 28 July 1966, in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20080003346, dated 22 July 2008.

2.  The applicant submitted a self-authored statement, a copy of the 4th Maintenance Battalion Morning Report, and a statement of support that were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR.  Therefore, they are considered new evidence and as such warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant’s records show he was appointed as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 7 June 1964.  He subsequently entered active duty on 29 July 1964 and completed the Ordnance Officer Basic Course.

4.  The applicant’s records also show he served in Korea from on or about 30 January 1965 to on or about 1 March 1966.  He was assigned to the 50th Ordnance Company.

5.  The applicant’s records further show he departed Korea on 13 November 1965 in a temporary duty (TDY) status and served as a supply officer with the 9th Logistical Command in Korat, Thailand, until 24 January 1966.  He returned to Korea and was ultimately reassigned to Fort Carson, CO, on 15 March 1966.

6.  The applicant’s records also show he was honorably released from active duty in the grade of first lieutenant on 28 July 1966 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) for completion of his Reserve obligation.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 2 years of creditable active service during this period.  This form also shows the following entries:

	a.  item 24c (Foreign and/or Sea Service) shows he completed 1 year, 1 month, and 16 days of foreign service in Korea; and

	b.  item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) shows the entry "None."

7.  The applicant submitted a copy of the 4th Maintenance Battalion Morning Report, dated 27 January 1966, which reported him returning from a TDY status to the 9th Logistical Command, Thailand.

8.  The applicant submitted a self-authored statement and a statement of support as follows.

	a.  In his self-authored statement, dated 8 April 2008, the applicant states that the name 7th Maintenance Battalion may be misunderstood.  While the 

headquarters of this battalion was a standard non-divisional maintenance battalion, the actual missions assigned were far from standard.  This battalion actually had only one maintenance company, the 57th Maintenance Company.  The remaining units were ad hoc units formed by necessity, such as supply and service.  The ammunition storage unit was an ad hoc unit as well as Class II and IV supply organization.  The largest mission assigned to the battalion was pre-positioning war materiel and this was accomplished by drawing Soldiers from subordinate units on a special duty basis.  Soldiers and local civilian hires performed the duties in an ad hoc property disposal yard containing Army materiel as well as remnants of Air Force crafts flown on war missions in Southeast Asia.

	b.  In a statement, dated 22 November 1968, a retired lieutenant colonel states that subsequent to completing the same officer basic course with the applicant, he was assigned to Thailand while the applicant was assigned to Korea.  However, the expansion of the armed conflict in Laos and Vietnam required a corresponding expansion of the scope of the 9th Logistical Command missions.  The applicant provided assistance in the form of a 90-day TDY service in Korat, Thailand.  The command was involved in all aspects of the war in Laos such as evacuation of the American Embassy and handling captured enemy weapon systems.  It also assisted with ammunition storage overflow, supplies, and disposal of recovered combat damaged aircraft bits and pieces from the air war over Southeast Asia.  Additionally, the supply activity outfitted the U.S. Army landing craft unit at the Port of Sattahip, Thailand, prior to movement to Vietnam.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Vietnam Service Medal.  The Vietnam Service Medal was established on 8 July 1965.  It is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States serving in Vietnam and contiguous waters or airspace there over 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.  To qualify for award of the Vietnam Service Medal an individual must meet one of the following qualifications:  (1) be attached to or regularly serve for 1 or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting military operations; (2) be attached to or regularly serve for 1 or more days aboard a Naval vessel directly supporting military operations; (3) actually participate as a crewmember in one or more aerial flights into airspace above Vietnam and contiguous waters directly supporting military operations; or 

(4) serve on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days in Vietnam or contiguous areas, except that time limit may be waived for personnel participating in actual combat operations.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, for the definition of direct support.  It states that direct support occurs when services being supplied to participating forces in the area of eligibility by ground units, ships, and aircraft provided, involve actually entering the designated area of eligibility.  This includes units, ships, and aircraft providing logistic, patrol, guard, reconnaissance, or other military support within the designated area of eligibility.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his earlier request for award of the Vietnam Service Medal should be reconsidered.

2.  The applicant’s service in Thailand in a TDY status from 13 November 1965 to 24 January 1966 is not in question.  Additionally, his own and his unit’s contributions to the overall war effort are not in question.  However, there is insufficient evidence that shows his service was in direct support of operations in Vietnam.

3.  Direct support occurs when services being supplied to participating forces in the area of eligibility involve actually entering the designated area of eligibility.  Regretfully, there is still insufficient evidence to show that the applicant met the criteria for award of the Vietnam Service Medal.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20080003346 on 22 July 2008.



      ____________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)                                         AR20090009101



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090009101



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1