IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 April 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090016024 


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, in effect, an upgrade of his Army Commendation Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster for meritorious service for the period           7 October 1971 to 2 April 1972 to the Bronze Star Medal.  

2.  The applicant states:

* he was highly recommended for two awards of the Bronze Star Medal
* his two recommendations for the Bronze Star Medal were left unresolved due to his unit being "stood down" in the summer of 1972 
* in 2000 he petitioned the Department of the Army through a Member of Congress for two awards of the Bronze Star Medal and they retaliated by over looking one recommendation and downgrading the other recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal to an Army Commendation Medal 
* Army officials failed to properly cite his actions as a noncommissioned officer in charge of 15 fighting positions during the TET Offensive in 1972 

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter, dated 4 February 2009, to the Inquirer
* a photograph of a Soldier
* Letter of Recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal, dated 28 April 1972
* Letters of Appreciation, dated 23 May 1972 and 31 May 1972
* an undated Recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal
* Letter of Commendation, dated 10 April 1972
* A letter to a Member of Congress, dated 23 June 2008

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 March 1966 for a period of 
3 years.  He served in Vietnam from 8 February 1968 to 3 February 1969.  On 
4 February 1969, he was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his remaining service obligation.

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 4 February 1969 does not show the Bronze Star Medal as an authorized award. 

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 November 1969 for a period of 3 years.  On 12 August 1971, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  

5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 August 1971 does not show the Bronze Star Medal as an authorized award. 

6.  The applicant reenlisted on 13 August 1971 for a period of 5 years.  He served as a tactical microwave systems repairman in Vietnam from 3 October 1971 to 1 July 1972.  On 5 November 1975, he was released from active duty and placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) the following day.  

7.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 5 November 1975 does not show the Bronze Star Medal as an authorized award.  This DD Form 214 does show, among other awards, the Army Commendation Medal with First Oak Leaf Cluster. 

8.  The applicant was removed from the TDRL on 30 September 1977 and permanently retired (30 percent).

9.  There are no orders for the Bronze Star Medal in the available records. 

10.  The applicant provided a recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal, dated 28 April 1972, from the Executive Officer, 44th Signal Battalion.  This recommendation is for the period 7 October 1971 to 27 March 1972 and describes the applicant's numerous duty positions while serving in the 44th Signal Battalion in Vietnam.  This recommendation stated, in pertinent part, the applicant "often worked long arduous hours assisting his personnel during complicated outages insuring that all positive restoration action was being accomplished.  Staff Sergeant [applicant's last name] worked remarkably well as the Technical Control Facility NCOIC [noncommissioned officer in charge] and in doing so, he consistently produced outstanding results."  The Executive Officer stated the applicant "has distinguished himself by serving with the willingness and determination very few Soldiers have in such a demanding situation.  He has brought great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army." 

11.  The undated recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal from his commanding officer, 160th Signal Group is for exceptionally meritorious service while serving with the 44th Signal Battalion during the period 7 October 1971 to 
2 April 1972.  The recommendation stated the applicant supervised the maintenance, administration, and supply of the bunkerline operated by the 44th Signal Battalion.  The recommendation also stated the applicant displayed a high state of military bearing and served as a model noncommissioned officer, his value to the unit was distinctive and singular, and his ability to work in harmony with supervisors and subordinates alike gained him the respect of all those with whom he came into contact.  The commanding officer stated the applicant "is an exceptional professional whose determination and drive are commendable.  He performed admirably in this unit, and indeed is a distinct asset to any unit to which he is assigned.  SSG [the applicant's last name] strongly deserves the Bronze Star Medal for his brilliant service while assigned to the 44th Signal Battalion."      

12.  An award recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal was forwarded to the Army Decorations Board for consideration.  On 1 April 2002, the Army Decorations Board determined the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the strict criteria for the proposed award and recommended an award of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service for the period 7 October 1971 to 2 April 1972.  The applicant received orders for the Army Commendation Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster for the period 7 October 1971 to 2 April 1972.  The citation stated:  For exceptionally meritorious service while serving with the 44th Signal Battalion, 1st Signal Brigade in the Republic of Vietnam.  During the period 7 October 1971 to 2 April 1972, Sergeant [the applicant's last name] supervised the maintenance, administration and supply of the bunkerline operated by the Battalion.  He astutely surmounted extremely adverse conditions to obtain consistently superior results.  Through his diligence, foresight and determination, he accomplished every task with dispatch and efficiency, avoiding many potential problems.  His unrelenting loyalty, initiative and perseverance inspired others to strive for maximum achievement.  Selflessly working long and arduous hours, he has contributed significantly to the success of his unit. Sergeant [the applicant's last name] commendable performance was in keeping with the finest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the 44th Signal Battalion, and the United States Army." 

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  

14.  Paragraph 1-19 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that only one decoration will be awarded to an individual for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention he was highly recommended for two [separate] awards of the Bronze Star Medal.  Since the two recommendations provided by the applicant are basically for the same period of time while he was assigned to the 44th Signal Battalion in Vietnam, and the governing regulation states only one decoration will be awarded to an individual for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service, the applicant had two recommendations for the Bronze Star Medal for the same period of meritorious service.  

2.  The applicant's contention he petitioned the Department of the Army for two awards of the Bronze Star Medal and one recommendation was overlooked and one recommendation was downgraded to an Army Commendation Medal was noted.  However, since the citation for the applicant's award of the Army Commendation Medal with Second Oak Leaf Cluster for exceptionally meritorious service during the period 7 October 1971 to 2 April 1972 contains information from both recommendations, it is reasonable to presume the Army Decorations Board considered both recommendations in 2002. 
3.  Evidence of record in this case shows an award recommendation for the Bronze Star Medal was considered by the Army Decorations Board in April 2002.  
The Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of the applicant’s action and service did not meet the strict criteria for award of the Bronze Star Medal but instead approved award of the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service during the period 7 October 1971 to 2 April 1972.   

4.  There is no compelling evidence which warrants upgrading his award of the Army Commendation Medal to the Bronze Star Medal.  Therefore, the 2002 decision of the Army Decorations Board that the Army Commendation Medal was the appropriate recognition for the applicant’s actions during the period 7 October 1971 to 2 April 1972 is reaffirmed.

5.  The applicant and all others concerned should know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.  

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
      
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)                                         AR20090016024



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090016024



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1