IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120005279 


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 award of the Vietnam Service Medal through his Member of Congress.  He also requests award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) which is a new issue.

2.  The applicant states he never claimed he was assigned permanently or temporarily to the country of Vietnam and he is not seeking these awards on that basis.  He was assigned to the 17th Military Intelligence Detachment (MID), formerly under the 9th Logistical Command, Korat, Thailand, later renamed U.S. Army Support-Thailand (USARSUPTHAI).  This tour of duty, like Vietnam, was considered a hardship tour of approximately 12 months.

	a.  According to Army Regulation 670-1 (Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia) the Vietnam theater includes Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia.  Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1348.33 (Manual of Military Decorations and Awards) states the Vietnam Service Medal and Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty and in direct support of the Vietnam conflict in the countries of Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia.  Furthermore, the Defense Technical Information Center records show the Army Adjutant General's Office states that USARSUPTHAI was, in fact, combat ready and in direct support of the Vietnam theater.

	b.  The 17th MID's area of responsibility was not only the security inspections of military bases of Korat but also Ubon, Udorn and Sakon Nakon, to include several U.S. Strategic Command sites.  The 17th MID was involved in the collection and dissemination of critical intelligence collected in the northeast on communist terrorist activities.  This was achieved by the placement of agents on temporary duty (TDY) from the 441st MID in Okinawa into strategic positions within Northeast Thailand.  The 2nd Thai Army Intelligence Division reported to them that there was a $25,000.00 bounty on all U.S. intelligence personnel, but he cannot show proof of this.  To this extent and in order to pose less of a threat to the USARSUPTHAI base, the 17th MID relocated to downtown Korat under civilian cover in February 1967.  All military personnel in Northeast Thailand (Laos and Cambodia) were potential targets from an unseen enemy and terrorist activities took many forms.

	c.  He cited an article that notes the Vietnam War was not limited to the boundaries of Vietnam, but made its way into Northeast Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia and therefore any duty station in the aforementioned areas would be in "direct support."

	d.  He concludes that every military person in the northeast theater was there in direct support of the Vietnam conflict even if they did not directly engage the enemy.

	e.  The award of medals to some service personnel based on direct support is not only discriminatory but demeans the efforts of all service personnel who are not considered within a "direct support" criteria of that theater, to include all support to pilots who flew tactical strikes from Northeast Thailand to North Vietnam and support of the U.S. Strategic Command sites that supplied critical relay information to the allied forces in Vietnam on troop movements and the security intelligence community that collected vital information on the enemy buildup and movement.

	f.  The fact is that every service person in that theater was in direct support of the Vietnam Conflict, in harm's way, and that is why they were there.  They may not have flown a tactical air strike but they might have prepared food for that pilot, or delivered his mail to keep his morale up, or worked on his aircraft so it would operate correctly, or walked the perimeter to insure his safety when he/she slept.  This award is based on participation in an area of conflict and not the sole brave deed or act of heroism of another.  To single out a particular class or military occupational specialty (MOS) and award them the Vietnam Service Medal and not those who supported their efforts is reprehensible and discriminatory.



3.  The applicant provides:

* excerpts from Army Regulation 670-1 and DODI 1348.33
* Adjutant General's Office Operational Report, dated 15 February 1967
* newspaper articles
* article on Thailand's role in covert operations, counter-insurgency, and the wars in Indochina
* TDY orders
* letter from a Member of Congress, dated 6 January 2012

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 AR20110004914 on 20 September 2011.

2.  The arguments and documentation provided by the applicant are new evidence that will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 September 1965 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded MOS 97D (military intelligence coordinator).

4.  On 27 September 1968, he was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his remaining service obligation.  He completed 3 years of total active service.  The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued at the time shows in:

* item 22c (Foreign and/or Sea Service) he served 1 year and 14 days of foreign service in the U.S. Army Pacific
* item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) no medals or citations for Vietnam-related service

5.  Item 31 (Foreign Service) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in Thailand from 23 April 1966 to 6 May 1967, this equates to 1 year and 14 days of foreign service.

6.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant's unit served in direct support of operations in Vietnam.

7.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant served in Vietnam.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.

	a.  The Vietnam Service Medal is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973.  Qualifying service included attachment to or assignment for 1 or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting military operations.  

	b.  Members in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia during the same period and serving in direct support of operations in Vietnam are also eligible for the Vietnam Service Medal.  "Direct support" is defined as services being supplied to the combat forces in the area of operations by ground units, ships, and aircraft providing supplies and equipment to the forces concerned, provided it involves actually entering the designated area, and ships and aircraft providing fire, patrol, guard, reconnaissance, or other military support.

	c.  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.  Qualifying service outside the geographical limits of the Republic of Vietnam required the individual to provide direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam and Armed Forces.

9.  DODI 1348.33 states the Vietnam Service Medal was awarded to all members of the U.S. Armed Forces who served in Vietnam or contiguous waters or airspace after 3 July 1965 and before 28 March 1973.  In addition, personnel serving in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia in direct support of operations in Vietnam during the same time period were also eligible for the Vietnam Service Medal.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions and the documentation he provided were carefully considered.

2.  The evidence shows he served in Thailand from 23 April 1966 to 6 May 1967 which is properly shown in item 22c of his DD Form 214.

3.  "Direct support" is defined as services being supplied to the combat forces in the area of operations by ground units, ships, and aircraft providing supplies and equipment to the forces concerned, provided it involves actually entering the designated area, and ships and aircraft providing fire, patrol, guard, reconnaissance, or other military support.

4.  The applicant’s contentions that all military personnel in Northeast Thailand (and Laos and Cambodia) were potential targets from an unseen enemy and terrorist activities were noted.  The article that noted the Vietnam War was not limited to the boundaries of Vietnam but made its way into Northeast Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia, with his contention that any duty station in the aforementioned areas would therefore be in "direct support" was also noted.

5.  However, except for a generally limited period when the allied forces took the war into Cambodia, the combat forces were in Vietnam.  "Direct support" is defined as services being supplied to the combat forces in the area of operations.

6.  The applicant acknowledges that his unit never left Thailand.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant has provided no evidence which shows that while serving in Thailand he served in direct support of operations in Vietnam as defined by the awards regulation.  Therefore, it appears he did not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the Vietnam Service Medal.

7.  Likewise, eligibility for award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) required service outside the geographical limits of the Republic of Vietnam to have been in direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam and Armed Forces.  The applicant's description of his unit’s mission does not appear to fit the definition of direct combat support.

8.  Regrettably, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ____X __  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110004914, dated 20 September 2011.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant the second portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).



      __________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)                                         AR20120005279



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120005279



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1