IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  19 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110014142 


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, the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and Purple Heart (PH) to her late husband and correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 29 February 1968 to show these awards.

2.  The applicant states while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) the FSM struck a dike and he was rendered unconscious.  When he regained conscious he was in the hospital in the RVN.

3.  The applicant provides the FSM’s:

* DD Form 214 for the period ending 29 February 1968
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 8 May 1981
* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) for the period ending 4 November 1955 and 5 July 1950
* Authenticated Copy of Marriage Record
* Certificate of Death

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The FSM’s record shows he initially entered active duty in an enlisted status on 24 February 1948 for a period of 3 years and he served until being honorably 


discharged on 5 July 1950 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  On 6 July 1950, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years.  He remained serving on active duty in that status until 4 November 1955, at which time he was honorably discharged to accept an appointment as a warrant officer.  On 5 November 1955, he was appointed a warrant officer one (WO1) in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 1981 (Helicopter Aviator).

2.  The FSM’s DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record) shows in:

	a.  item 17 (Foreign Service) he served in the RVN from 17 July 1965 through 16 May 1966;

	b.  item 18 (Record of Assignments) he was assigned to the 3rd Radio Research Unit (RRU) as an airplane pilot from 19 July 1965 through 30 March 1966;

	c.  item 18 he was assigned to 249th General Hospital (Japan) on 31 March through 12 April 1966 as a patient;

	d.  item 21 (Awards and Decorations) the:

* Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM)
* Korean Service Medal (KSM)
* United Nations Service Medal (UNSM)
* Army Occupation Medal (AOM) with Japan and Berlin Clasps
* Master Parachutist Badge
* Medical Badge
* National Defense Service Medal (NDSM)
* Army Aviator Badge
* Senior Army Aviator Badge
* Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM) Berlin
* Air Medal (AM) 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster (4th Award)
* Armed Forces Reserve Medal (AFRM)
* Vietnam Service Medal (VSM)
* RVN Campaign Medal with Device (1960) (RVNCM)
* Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM)
* Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) 

3.  A Standard Form (SF) 88 (Record of Medical Examination) documenting a flight medical examination completed on the FSM makes no mention of a 


combat-related wound or injury.  It does indicate the FSM suffered from recurrent unconsciousness.  On 21 April 1967, the FSM was medically disqualified from flying status due to recurrence of unconsciousness.  He also underwent a retirement medical examination on 13 September 1967.

4.  An SF 513 (Clinical Record - Consultation Sheet) completed at the time of his retirement medical examination shows the FSM suffered from hyperactive vasomotor response and he had a history of dyspnea which had been medically treated.  The medical history outlined on this document shows the FSM had been seen for this condition in July 1966 and reevaluated in January 1967.  It also indicates the FSM underwent a neurologic consultation in August 1966.  It further shows the FSM had recurrent episodes of unconsciousness.  This form documents no enemy-related action responsible for or as a contributing factor to the FSM’s condition at that time.

5.  The record is void of any documents or orders showing the FSM was ever recommended for or awarded the DFC and/or the PH during his active duty tenure.  It is also void of medical treatment records indicating the applicant was ever treated for a combat-related wound in the RVN, or that his hospitalization was the result of his being wounded as a result of enemy action.

6.  On 29 February 1968, the FSM was honorably retired, in the rank of chief warrant officer three, after completing 20 years and 7 days of total active service.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the DD Form 214 he was issued at the time does not include the DFC and/or the PH in the list of earned awards.

7.  On 9 March 1989, a DA Forms 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards)  issued by the Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri, dated
9 March 1989 and 3 August 1990, authorized the issuance of all of the FSM’s earned awards.  The DFC and/or the PH were not included in this authorized list of awards.

8. Review of The Adjutant General's Office, Casualty Division's Vietnam casualty listing does not show the FSM's name.

9.  Review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS), 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 for the DFC or the PH pertaining to the applicant.


10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 2-8 contains the regulatory guidance pertaining to award of the PH.  It states that in order to award a PH there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, that the wound required treatment by a medical officer, and a record of this medical treatment must be supported by medical treatment records that were made a matter of official record.

11.  Paragraph 3-1 of the awards regulation states the decision to award an individual a decoration and as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  Paragraph 3-12 contains guidance on award of the DFC.  It states it is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army of the United States, distinguished himself or herself by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight.  The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from his or her comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.  Awards will be made only to recognize single acts of heroism or extraordinary achievement and will not be made in recognition of sustained operational activities against an armed enemy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the FSM’s record should be corrected to show award of the DFC and the PH has been carefully considered.  However, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, in order to support award of the PH, there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, that it required treatment by military medical personnel, and a record of this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

3.  The FSM’s record is void of any entries or documents indicating the FSM was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty.  The PH is also not included in the list of awards contained on his DA Form 66 or on his DD Forms 214.  Further, there are no PH orders for him on file in the ADCARS and his name is not included on the Vietnam casualty listing, the official DA list of RVN battle casualties.  As a result, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case.


4.  The applicant's contention that the FSM should be awarded the DFC has also been carefully considered.  However, there is no evidence indicating that he was ever recommended for or awarded the DFC by proper authority while serving on active duty, and the applicant failed to provide sufficient compelling evidence of an act of gallantry that would support award the DFC to the FSM at this late date. As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting this portion of the requested relief.

5.  The applicant and all others should know that the sacrifices the FSM made in service to the United States during the Vietnam War are deeply appreciated.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of the FSM's 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)                                         AR20110014142



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110014142



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1