IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 June 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090020870 


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 correction of his military records to show award of the Air Medal.

2.  The applicant makes a 13-page statement:

	a.  He apologizes for not returning an acknowledgement letter and thanks the Board for allowing him time to submit additional photographic evidence.

	b.   He states the Record of Proceedings was in error concerning his military occupational specialty, unit of assignment, and that it also contains conflicting dates.  

	c.   The applicant argues that his award of the Aircraft Crewman Badge combined with the fact that a number of other individuals in his unit were awarded the Air Medal should be sufficient for him to be awarded the Air Medal.  He further argues the absence of his flight records does not remove the fact that he flew countless hours as an air crewmember.   

3.  The applicant provides, in support of his request for reconsideration, copies of a statement from his former crew chief; 34 photographs; a 4-page essay, titled “My Life with the Camera,” dated 20 April 2009; and a newspaper article with photograph.



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 AR 20090000378, on 9 June 2009.

2.  The applicant has provided an additional argument that requires Board consideration.

3.  U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided, in pertinent part, guidelines for award of the Air Medal.  It defined terms and provided guidelines for the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours.  Twenty-five Category I missions (air assault and equally dangerous missions) and accrual of a minimum of 25 hours of flight time while engaged in Category I missions was the standard established for which sustained operations were deemed worthy of recognition by an award of the Air Medal.  However, the regulation was clear that these guidelines were considered only a departure point.  

4.  Combat missions were divided into three categories.  A category I mission was defined as a mission performed in an assault role in which a hostile force was engaged and was characterized by delivery of ordnance against the hostile force, or delivery of friendly troops or supplies into the immediate combat operations area.  A category II mission was characterized by support rendered a friendly force immediately before, during or immediately following a combat operation.  A category III mission was characterized by support of friendly forces not connected with an immediate combat operation but which must have been accomplished at altitudes which made the aircraft at times vulnerable to small arms fire, or under hazardous weather or terrain conditions.

5.  To be recommended for award of the Air Medal, 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 towards award of an Air Medal for sustained operations, different computations would have to be made to combine category I, II and III flight time and adjust it to a common denominator.

6.  The Army Regulation governing military awards at the time in question provided for temporary and permanent award of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge.  The regulation authorized the commander of any unit with Army aircraft assigned to publish orders allowing qualified members of that command to wear the Aircraft Crew Member Badge.  To be eligible for temporary award of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge an individual had to be on flying status as a crew chief in the case of crew chiefs, electronic sensor system operators, and flight engineers or as a non-crewmember in the case of observers, medical aidmen, gunners, aircraft maintenance supervisors, or technical inspectors.  The regulation also required individuals to be qualified based on a Class III physical examination, and to hold a principal duty assignment as a crew chief, flight engineer, aircraft maintenance supervisor, observer, gunner, or technical inspector.  These personnel are authorized to wear the badge temporarily until relieved from these duties or they may be authorized permanent wear of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge once they have fulfilled the regulatory requirements for permanent award of the badge.  

7.  For permanent award of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge, an individual must have performed in one of the duties specified above for not less than 12 months (not necessarily consecutive) or must have been school trained for a principal duty specified above.  

8.  The applicant was initially awarded MOS 67M which was subsequently withdrawn when he was awarded MOS 67N.  The original Record of Proceedings indicated he was initially awarded MOS 67N.

9.  The applicant was assigned to the 18th Engineer Group (Construction) from on or about 30 January to 7 October 1970.  The original Record of Proceedings indicated he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 35th Engineer Group from on or about 30 January 1970 to on or about 8 September 1970 and  performed duties as a helicopter repairman in that unit from               30 January 1970 to 7 October 1970.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his award of the Aircraft Crewman Badge combined with the fact that others in his unit were awarded the Air Medal, should be sufficient for him to also receive the Air Medal.  He also contends that his MOS, unit, and dates of assignment were incorrectly stated in the original Record of Proceedings.
  
2.  The applicant’s numerous photographs and award of the Aircraft Crewman Badge are strong evidence that he performed flight duty as a crewman.  However, they do not substantiate that he completed the requisite number of flight hours or that he was recommended for the Air Medal. 

3.  The applicant is correct when he states that original Record of Proceedings erred in regard to his MOS, unit designation, and dates of assignment.  However, all three errors were no more than misquotes.   Furthermore, none of the errors had an impact on the issue of the case.

4.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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 AR20090000378, dated 9 June 2009.




      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20090019742



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090020870



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1