IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  18 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110009395 


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 correction of his records as follows:  

	a.  USARV (U.S. Army Vietnam) Form 157-R (Recommendation for Decoration for Valor or Merit) as follows:

		(1)  Item 12 (Dates of Service-Merit/Dates of Action/Valor) from "15 November 1968 to 14 November 1969 (365 days)" to "12 April 1969 to 13 November 1969 (217 days)";

		(2)  Item 18 (Narrative Description):

			a.  Paragraph 1, statement "15 November 1968 through 14 November 1969 (365 days) serving as S-4, MACV (Military Assistance Command - Vietnam), Recondo School" to read "12 April 1969 through 18 July 19689 (98 days)"; and

			b.  Paragraph 2, statement "11 August 1969 through 14 November 1969 (106 days) serving as CO (Commanding Officer), COC (Combat Orientation Course)" to read "19 July 1969 through 14 November 1969.”

	b.  General Orders (GO) Number 1580, issued by Headquarters, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) (SFG (A)), 1st Special Forces, on 24 September 1969, "Date of Action" be changed from "15 November 1968 to 14 November 1969" to "12 April 1969 through 14 November 1969"; and 

	c.  Citation for award of the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) be changed from "15 November 1968 to 14 November 1969" to "12 April 1969 through 14 November 1969." 

2.  The applicant states that due to the errors in the dates of service, the recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) was unjustly prejudiced at the time of the recommendation review and approval.  He was awarded the ARCOM instead.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Denial letter from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, to upgrade the ARCOM to a BSM
* USARV Form 157-R and allied documents
* DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record)
* DA Forms 67-6 (U.S. Army Officer Efficiency Report (OER)) for the periods 12 April 1969 through 18 July 1969 and 19 July 1969 through 12 November 1969
* GO Number 1580 and accompanying citation and certificate

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard (ARNG), the applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the ARNG and executed an oath of office on 20 August 1966.  

2.  He entered active duty on 23 January 1967 and he was initially assigned to Fort Bragg, NC.  He served in Thailand from 30 October 1967 to 14 October 1968.  He was assigned to the 46th SF Company, 1st SF. 

3.  He departed Thailand on 14 October 1968 enroute to Vietnam.  He served in Vietnam from 15 November 1968 to 13 November 1969.  His DA Form 66 shows he was assigned as follows:

* 20 November 1968 to 23 January 1969; S-4, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 5th SFG (A), 1st SF
* 24 January to 2 March 1969; Assistant Liaison Officer, Headquarters, II Field Force Vietnam (FFVN) 
* 3 March to 11 April 1969; Assistant S-3 Bien Hoa Tactical Assistance Command (BHTAC); Headquarters, II FFVN
* 12 April to 18 July 1969; S-4, MACV, Recondo School; 5th SFG (A)
* 19 July to 13 November 1969; CO COC (Counterinsurgency), SOA Recondo, 5th SFG
4.  On 15 September 1969, the Commandant, MACV Recondo School, 5th SFG (A), 1st SF, submitted a USARV Form 157-R recommending the applicant for award of the BSM for meritorious service from 15 November 1968 to 14 November 1969.  The recommending official described in detail what the applicant did to warrant the recommended decoration, specifically his service in preparing personnel for Long Range Reconnaissance Patrolling activities and commanding officer of the COC.

5.  On 25 September 1969, the Assistant Adjutant, 5th SFG (A), 1st SF, notified the commandant, MACV Recondo School, 5th SFG (A), 1st SF, that the recommendation for award of the BSM for meritorious service received evaluation by the 5th SFG (A) Awards and Decorations Board and it was determined the action was distinguished and deserving of recognition; however, the standards for the BSM were not fulfilled.  The ARCOM would be awarded in lieu of the BSM.

6.  On 24 September 1969, Headquarters, 5th SFG (A), 1st SF, published GO Number 1580, awarding the applicant the ARCOM (1st Oak Leaf Cluster) for meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile force in Vietnam.  

7.  On 14 October 1969, by endorsement, the assistant commandant submitted additional information, including the applicant's duties as the S-4.  However, there is no indication if this endorsement was submitted to the higher headquarters or if submitted, was acted upon, or if acted upon, resulted in a change to the approved award of ARCOM.

8.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 25 August 1973 to the control of the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Standby). 

9.  It appears he twice submitted a request through his Member of Congress to HRC for an upgrade of the ARCOM to a BSM.

10.  On 18 December 2010, by letter to his Member of Congress, an HRC official stated that DOD policy allows for one time reconsideration of an award if there is substantive new evidence presented.  The Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of service rendered did not meet the criteria for the proposed award.  

11.  The applicant submitted his OERs during the period in question.  His OERs confirm his duties as the S-4 from 12 April 1969 to 16 July 1969 and CO of the COC from 19 July 1969 to 12 November 1969.  Both OERs show a solid rating by his rating officials. 
12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states:

	a.  The ARCOM may be awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity with the Army after 6 December 1941, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

	b.  The BSM is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, in connection with military operations against an armed enemy, or while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board applicant's service in Vietnam and under hazardous conditions is acknowledged and applauded.  However, it is extremely difficult to make the necessary distinctions as to whether his meritorious service warranted an award of the ARCOM or the BSM.  

2.  His record shows he was clearly cited for his service against an enemy while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force in Vietnam.  A decision was made by his higher headquarters at the time, the 5th SFG (A), 1st SF, to award him the ARCOM.  The approval authority determined his service was distinguished and deserving of recognition but did not fulfill the standards of the BSM.  He awarded him the ARCOM instead. 

3.  The decision of whether to award an individual a decoration and which decoration to award is a judgment call made by the commander having award approval authority.  Commanders at the time of the act, or shortly thereafter, determined his actions were so noteworthy as to warrant award of the ARCOM.  There is insufficient evidence that his actions rose to the level of the BSM.  

4.  The USARV Form 157-R shows his recommended award was for service; not achievement.  His service was encompassing of all his duties and/or performance during the period of the recommended award.  There is no evidence that the recommending official intended to recommend him for a portion of his one-year tour in Vietnam or that such action would have resulted in an award of the BSM.  
5.  In view of the foregoing evidence, he is not entitled to the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20110009395





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110009395



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1