IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100028386 


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 his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) be corrected to show:

* He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC),   S-5, 3d Brigade 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) and not HHC, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment
* That he was assigned in the military occupational specialty (MOS) of a psychological operations specialist and not a stock control and accounting specialist
* That he is authorized the award of the Air Medal
* That he is authorized the award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM)

2.  The applicant states that his record of assignments incorrectly shows that he served in HHC, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division; however, he never reported to that unit and served instead in HHC, S-5, 3d Brigade 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) as a psychological operations specialist.  He goes on to state that his record of assignment should be corrected and he should be awarded the MOS of a psychological operations specialist.  He further states that he should be awarded the Air Medal and the AGCM.

3.  The applicant provides:

* A three-page letter explaining his application
* A copy of his record of assignments from his DA Form 20
* A copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* A copy of General Orders Number 9866 awarding him the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) 
* A statement from a retired colonel claiming he was the applicant’s supervisor in the S-5 section
* A statement from an attorney who claims he was a lieutenant assigned to the same unit as the applicant and knows that the applicant worked in S-5
* A photograph and an article explaining the photograph was that of the applicant throwing leaflets from a helicopter
* A copy of a helicopter accident summary
* A letter of commendation
* A blurred copy of a college diploma

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 official records, though somewhat incomplete, show that he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 13 May 1964 for a period of 6 years.  He was ordered to active duty for training (ADUTRA) on 18 June 1964 and was transferred to Fort Ord, California for his basic training and Fort Jackson, South Carolina for his advanced individual training as a light weapons infantryman.  He was released from ADUTRA on 17 December 1964 and was returned to his USAR unit in California.

3.  On 31 December 1965 he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) and on 19 June 1968 he was involuntarily ordered to active duty for a period of 2 years.  He was transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington for assignment to an armored cavalry troop.

4.  On 24 January 1969 he was transferred to Vietnam and was assigned to the United Stated Army Depot – Long Binh for duty as a stock control and accounting specialist in MOS 76P2O.  

5.  On 12 February 1969 the applicant submitted a request for early separation to attend school.

6.  On 20 February 1969 he was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 in MOS 76P20 and on 15 March 1969 orders were published changing the applicant’s primary MOS to 76P2O and his secondary MOS to 11B2O.

7.  On 27 February 1969 the applicant submitted a request for reassignment to the 1st Cavalry Division G-5 section.  The chief of the G5 (a lieutenant colonel with the last name of Jennings) indicated that although the G5 was not authorized the applicant’s MOS, he was acceptable for assignment to the G-5.

8.  On 13 March 1969 the applicant’s request for early separation was approved for a separation date of not earlier than 18 September 1969.

9.  On 15 April 1969 his request for reassignment was approved and orders were published assigning the applicant to the 15th Administration Company (Replacement Detachment) with further assignment to HHC, 1st Air Cavalry Division effective 13 May 1969.

10.  The applicant’s record of assignment reflects his assignment to HHC, 1st Cavalry Division on 13 May 1969 and also shows that on 25 May 1969 he was transferred to HHC, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division.  Both assignments show his duty MOS as 76P2O and his principal duty as a stock control and accounting specialist.

11.  On 16 August 1969 General Orders Number 9866 published by Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division awarded the applicant the ARCOM for the period of September 1968 to September 1969 while assigned to HHC, 3d Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division.

12.  On 30 August 1969 General Orders Number 10594 published by Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division awarded the applicant the ARCOM for the period of September 1968 to September 1969 while assigned to HHC, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division.

13.  After serving in three campaigns he departed Vietnam on or about 12 September 1969 and was transferred to Oakland Army Base, California where he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 12 September 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, as an early release to attend school.  He had served 1 year, 2 months, and 24 days of active service and 7 months and 18 days of service in Vietnam.

14.  His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his REFRAD shows that his last duty assignment was “HHC, 3d Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division USARPAC.”  It shows his specialty was “76P20 Stk Cont & Acct Spec” and that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and a Vietnam Unit Citation.

15.  A review of his records show that he had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service and is void of any derogatory information that would serve to disqualify him for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).

16.  The applicant’s records contain no evidence of the applicant being awarded the Air Medal, nor does it contain any flight records showing his participation in aerial flight, the types of missions or the number of hours flown.  Additionally, his records show no indication that he was reclassified into a psychological operations specialist MOS.

17.  A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System, an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders awarding him the Air Medal or any additional awards.

18.  The DA Form 20 served as the enlisted qualification record from 1 November 1954 until 31 December 1972 when it became obsolete and was replaced by the DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) on          1 January 1973.  The DA Form 2-1 is now also an obsolete form that is no longer in production.

19.  A search of military occupational specialties (MOSs) used during the Vietnam era failed to reveal an MOS for a “psychological operations specialist.”

20.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940; for first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 


2 March 1946; and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings.  There must have been no convictions by a court-martial.  However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in general orders.

21.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) was awarded by the Government of Vietnam to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam during the period 1 March 1961 through 28 March 1973.  Qualifying service included assignment in Vietnam for 6 months or more.  

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Air Medal 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 are required.

23.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of Soldiers for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  It shows that during the applicant's assignment, his unit was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC), the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/Palm) Unit Citation, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class (RVNCAHM-FC) Unit Citation.

24.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states a bronze service star is authorized based on qualifying service for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation.  This regulation states that bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign and service medal, which in this case is the Vietnam Service Medal.  

25.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides that only one decoration will be awarded to an individual or unit for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the sincerity of the applicant’s claim that he never served in HHC, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment and that he did not serve as a stock control and accounting specialist is not in doubt, there is insufficient evidence in the available records to determine exactly what happened in his case 40+ years ago.  This is especially true since an order awarding him the ARCOM was published by the 1st Cavalry Division showing his assignment to the 7th Cavalry Regiment. Additionally, the DA Form 20 that the applicant wants corrected is an obsolete form that is no longer corrected.

2.  While the applicant’s contention that he served as a psychological operations specialist is also not in doubt, there is no evidence to show that he was ever reclassified as a psychological operations specialist or that there was an MOS for that specialty at the time.  Accordingly, there is an insufficient basis to change his MOS to that of a psychological operations specialist.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he should be awarded the Air Medal has also been noted; however, there is no evidence in the available records to base the award of the Air Medal on.  There simply is no evidence to show that he participated in aerial flight or the extent of his participation.  Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence to award him the Air Medal at this time.

4.  The applicant’s contention that he should be awarded the AGCM has been noted and appears to have merit.  A review of the applicant's records shows he had "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his period of service and his records contain no derogatory information that would serve to disqualify him for the AGCM (1st Award).  Therefore, it appears the failure to award him the AGCM (1st Award) was the result of an administrative error.  Accordingly, he should be awarded this medal for the period 19 June 1968 to 12 September 1969, while serving in the rank of specialist four (SP4), and his DD Form 214 should be corrected accordingly. 

5.  Although the applicant’s records contain two orders awarding him the ARCOM in two different units for the same period of service, he is only entitled to award of one ARCOM.  Accordingly, the award of the ARCOM should be added to his records at this time.

6.  The applicant also served during a qualifying period for award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 1960 Device.  Accordingly, it should be added to his DD Form 214 at this time.

7.  The applicant served in three campaigns in Vietnam and he served during the period his unit was awarded the MUC, the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, and the RVNCAHM-FC Unit Citation.  Accordingly, he is entitled to wear three bronze service stars on his already-awarded VSM and to have the MUC, the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, and the RVNCAHM-FC Unit Citation added to his records.

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:

* Deleting the award of the Vietnam Service Medal from his DD Form 214
* Adding the award of the Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars to his DD Form 214
* Deleting the entry “Vietnam Unit Citation” from his DD Form 214
* Adding the award of the ARCOM to his DD Form 214
* Awarding him the AGCM (1st award) for the period of 9 June 1968 to 12 September 1969, while serving in the rank of specialist four (SP4), and adding it to his DD Form 214
* Adding the awards of the MUC, the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, and the RVNCAHM-FC Unit Citation 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 changing his unit of assignment, principal duty and MOS, and awarding him the Air Medal.  

3.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to the 


United States during the Vietnam War.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.




      _______ _  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)                                         AR20100028386





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100028386



8


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1