IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120002885 


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 upgrade of his Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) with "V" (Valor) Device to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM) with "V" Device.

2.  The applicant states in his report about the explosions and the loss of a Soldier's life on 2 May 1969, he mentioned a grenade exploded in the trench seconds after he got out.

3.  The applicant provides a Congressional Inquiry packet in support of his request.

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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on
27 September 1966.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C (infantry indirect fire crewman).  He was promoted to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 on 26 February 1968, and this is the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty.

3.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 13 March 1967 through 5 March 1968.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) includes the ARCOM with "V" Device.

4.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket contains General Orders Number 971, issued by Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, dated
8 March 1968, that awarded the applicant the ARCOM with "V" Device for heroism in action in the RVN on 2 May 1967.  The citation in the orders state an enemy hand grenade was thrown, initially wounding a member of the mortar section who was carrying four mortar rounds and one of those rounds exploded as he fell into a trench.  The applicant, knowing that any of the rounds could explode at any moment and with complete disregard for his own safety, leaped into the trench to help pull the wounded Soldier out.

5.  On 26 September 1968, the applicant was honorably released from active duty, in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5, after completing 2 years of total active service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued includes the ARCOM with "V" Device in the list of earned awards.

6.  On 9 January 2012, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY responded to a Member of Congress who was inquiring on behalf of the applicant concerning upgrading his ARCOM with "V" Device to a BSM with "V" Device.  That official informed the Member of Congress that on 3 April 2003, the Army Decorations Board determined the degree of action and service rendered by the applicant did not meet the extraordinary heroism required for the proposed award.  She further indicated that the Commander, HRC, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, affirmed that the previously-awarded ARCOM with "V" Device was the appropriate award for the applicant's actions.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy.  Chapter 3 contains guidance on U.S. Army individual decorations.  It states, in pertinent part, that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.  Paragraph 3-14 contains guidance on award of the BSM.  It states that awards of the BSM for heroism are for acts of heroism which are of lesser degree than required for the award of the Silver Star.

8.  Paragraph 3-17 of the awards regulation contains guidance on awarding the ARCOM.  It states the ARCOM is awarded for valor which is of lesser degree than required for award of the BSM for heroism.  Table 3-6 identifies the awards approval authorities during wartime.  The approval authority for the BSM and ARCOM during wartime is senior Army commanders and commanders of a separate force serving in the rank of lieutenant general and may be delegated to major generals or brigadier generals serving in major general positions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence of record or independent evidence submitted by the applicant that would support a conclusion that the applicant's award recommendation was not properly processed.  Therefore, it must be presumed the award approval authority evaluated the award recommendation and all supporting documents, and concluded that award of the ARCOM with "V" Device was the appropriate award to recognize the applicant's heroism in the RVN on 
2 May 1969.

2.  Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide additional documentation not considered by the Army Decorations Board in its review of his award on 3 April 2003.  Absent any evidence of error or injustice in the processing of the award, there is no reason for this Board to substitute its judgment for that of the original award approval authority and/or the Army Decorations Board.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

3.  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)                                         AR20120002885



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120002885



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1