BOARD DATE:	29 August 2013  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130001035 


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, through his Member of Congress, reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his award of the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device to a Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the Board failed to consider three statements in support of his request. 

3.  The applicant provides a:

* Statement from the former platoon sergeant
* Self-authored statement
* Statement from his former commander

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 AR20120002885, on 14 August 2012. 

2.  The applicant's Member of Congress provides three statements that he states were not previously considered.  

3.  The applicant's records show he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 27 September 1966 and he held military occupational specialty 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewmember).  

4.  He served in Vietnam from 13 March 1967 to 5 March 1968.  He was assigned to Company C, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry, 4th Infantry Division. 

5.  General Orders (GO) Number 971, issued by Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division, on 8 March 1968, awarded him the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device.  The GO cited the following reason:

For heroism in connection with military operations against an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam.  On 2 May 1967, Private First Class (the applicant) distinguished himself while serving as a Fire Direction Control Computer in the mortar section of Company C, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry, 3rd Brigade Task Force, 25th Infantry Division.  At approximately 1000 hours, an enemy hand grenade was thrown, fatally wounding a member of the mortar section.  The wounded Soldier was carrying four mortar rounds and one of these rounds, a white phosphorus round, exploded as he fell into a trench.  (The applicant), knowing that any of the rounds might explode at any moment and with complete disregard for his own safety, leaped into the trench to help pull the wounded man out.  He then helped pull his fallen comrade's equipment off him and helped carry him to a safe position and administered first aid to him and another Soldier who was wounded.  Private First Class (the applicant's) heroic actions are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

6.  He was honorably released from active duty on 26 September 1968.  His 
DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) listed the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device as well as other awards and decorations. 

7.  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 the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device to a Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device.  The HRC 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 Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device was the appropriate award for the applicant's actions.

8.  On 14 August 2012, this Board also determined there was 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.  Furthermore, the applicant did not 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 to grant his request. 

9.  He now provides three statements as follows:

	a.  An undated statement from an individual who claims to be the former platoon sergeant.  He states:

		(1)  On 2 May 1967, he was the platoon sergeant for the weapons' platoon of C Company, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry, located in the Quang Ngai Province of South Vietnam.  On this day, five Soldiers from the weapons platoon were on a search and destroy mission with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd platoons of C Company. Their platoon was carrying a 60 millimeter (mm) mortar along with a supply of white phosphorous and high explosive rounds for the mortar.  (The applicant), a radio telephone operator, was carrying both types of rounds with specialist four (SP4) K----h W---t, SP4 S----s, and SP4 H-----y accompanying him.  As they approached a trench, there was an explosion, immediately followed by a second one.  Everyone hit the ground.  He looked up and saw SP4 W-----t hanging in the trench by his web gear with the mortar's ammunition still attached to it.  He also noticed the applicant, still carrying his mortar rounds, get up and go into the trench where SP4 W----t was.  There was fire and smoke in the trench but that didn't keep the applicant from going in.  He beat some of the fire out and released SP4 W----t from his web gear.  He could tell from SP4 W----t's physical condition that he was in grave danger.  The applicant dragged SP4 W-----t over where he (the platoon sergeant) was kneeling, and they both got him out of the trench.  Shortly after SP4 W----t was out he passed away in their arms. 

		(2)  The applicant proceeded to get out of the trench and helped pull wounded SP4 S----s, who had been lying by the trench, to safety.  A few seconds later a white phosphorus grenade or mortar round exploded in the trench.  Not only had SP4 S----s been wounded by two explosions, but he (the platoon sergeant) along with SP4 H----y had been wounded also.  A medivac helicopter was called in taking him, SP4 H----y, SP4 S-----s, and SP4 W----t to the local Army medical station.  After recuperating for a couple months, he went back to the platoon, but SP4 S-----s and SP4 H----y did not.  Their wounds were much worse than his. 

		(3)  He later learned that the applicant had been awarded an Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device for his actions that day.  With fire and smoke going on in the trench and the possibility of more explosions from the ammunition he and SP4 W----t were carrying, there was a strong chance he would have been severely wounded or killed if some of the ammunition had gone off.  A white phosphorous grenade or mortar round did explode in the trench after he got out as stated in the above paragraph.

		(4)  He highly recommend that the applicant's previous award of an Army
Commendation Medal with "V" Device be upgraded to a Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device.  With the heroism he displayed on 2 May, by risking his life in getting SP4 W----t out of the trench, it is only right that this upgrade take place.  Also in his account of what happened that day and the 4th Division's account there is a huge discrepancy in the 4th Division's account in not mentioning the white phosphorous grenade or mortar round that exploded in the trench once he was out.  It was very likely this could have occurred while he was in the trench.  He is glad he is with us/them today.

	b.  A self-authored statement, dated 3 May 1967, by the applicant wherein he states: 

		(1)  On the afternoon of 2 May 1967, he was in the rear on a search and clear mission with his company, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry.  He, being a member of the weapons platoon, was carrying rounds for the 60 mm mortar they were carrying in case they made contact with the enemy.  They had just finished taking a short break.  As they started again, they were approaching a trench about four feet deep and 12 to 16 inches across.  Every man in their platoon had crossed this trench except for SP4 W----t, SP4 S-----s, SP4 H----y, and himself.  They were in line this way, too.  As SP4 W----t crossed the trench and moved ahead probably inches there was an explosion immediately followed by a second explosion.  He hit the ground, looked up and noticed SP4 W----t hanging inside the trench.  

		(2)  He got up, threw his rifle on the ground and moved toward the trench and went in after SP4 W----t never knowing or realizing that he still was carrying his mortar rounds which consisted of four high explosives and three white phosphorus rounds.  As he got into the trench there was a lot of fire and smoke, he also noticed that SP4 W----t was hanging by his web gear from his left arm.  At first it looked like the only thing wrong with him was that his left arm from the elbow down was blown off.  He also knew he had to beat some of the fire out; a knife he picked up in a Vietnamese village that morning was put to use.  He finally managed to get SP4 W----t's arm out of his web gear, finding that his arm had not been blown off but that the explosion had completely opened up his stomach on the right side.  He dragged him from the fire still noticing that he was moaning and gasping for breath, in a state of shock.  They had to get him out someway and try to save his life.  Doc W----s, the company medic, and Sergeant F----y the company communications sergeant, came to his aid and helped him get SP4 W----t out.  They dragged him to safety but it was too late, one of their best men and one of their most liked men had died.  Right after they pulled W----t out, he went up and helped drag SP4 S-----s to safety.  Seconds later a white phosphorus grenade went off in the trench.  He does not consider this as an act of heroism and anything like that, it was just a natural instinct to try and save the life of a man.

	c.  A statement from an individual who claims to be the former company commander.  He states: 

		(1)  He strongly recommends an upgrade of the subject award from an Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device to a Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device.  Time and fog of war blur his memory of the described action of 2 May 1967 resulting in the death of SP4 W----t.  Although he does not have a specific recollection of this event, he finds great insight to the action in the hand-written statement by the applicant, written on 3 May 1967, one day after the incident.  

		(2)  The 4th Infantry Division's GO published on 8 March 1958, nearly 
10 months after the action, specifically contain a significant omission which is recorded in the applicant's statement.  The GO failed to explicitly state that a white phosphorus grenade detonated in the trench immediately after the removal of SP4 W----t by the applicant. 

		(3)  Per the applicant's statement, "Right after we pulled SP4 W----t out, he went up and helped drag SP4 S-----s to safety, seconds later a white phosphorus grenade went off in the trench."  The time of the white phosphorus grenade explosion is critical to an understanding if the action.  Everyone had general knowledge that SP4 W----t carried white phosphorus grenades.  Being unconcerned about his own safety, the applicant certainly knew the possibility of a detonation of any grenade due to the fire and smoke in the trench; yet, he entered the trench and performed his heroic action.  This action was accentuated by the immediate detonation of the white phosphorus grenade.  

		(4)  The thesis is that the applicant went into the trench knowing the possibility of a cook-off detonation of a white phosphorus grenade.  The GO failed to highlight that such an explosion actually took place immediately.  The possibility of danger versus an actual explosion is a significant discriminator.  The Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device is deserved. 

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Bronze Star Medal 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.  

11.  U. S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) governed the military awards program in Vietnam during the Vietnam War.  It stated the Bronze Star Medal may have been awarded for heroism or for meritorious achievement or service which did not involve aerial flight but which was performed in connection with military operations against an armed enemy including combat, support, and supply operations.  The approval authority for award of the Bronze Star Medal was generally delegated no lower than brigadier generals in command of separate brigades.  However, the records of the Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command show that authority for award of the Bronze Star Medal for service had been delegated to colonels in command of the U.S. Army Support Commands located at Saigon, Cam Ranh Bay, and Qui Nhon and in command of separate engineer brigades in Vietnam assigned to the U.S. Army Engineer Troops (Provisional).

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the Army Commendation Medal 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.  

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the bronze "V" Device indicates acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy and authorizes the device in conjunction with awards of the Army Commendation Medal, the Air Medal, and the Bronze Star Medal.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Army awards system recognizes and reacts to distinguishing acts of valor and bravery for Soldiers.  The commander on the ground acts as a steward to ensure the proper recognition of our brave men and women.  The Army has always been fully committed to the responsibility of properly recognizing Soldiers for their valor, heroism, and meritorious service through a fair and consistent decorations and awards policy and process.
	a.  Awards and decorations are very important to Soldiers.  Equally important is the governance of the awards program.  For the awards program to be credible to the Soldiers and the American people, it must ensure that it recognizes individuals with a military award worthy of their accomplishments and acts of valor.  It must ensure the integrity of the award is maintained through strict procedures and proper justifications.  Finally, it must place trust and confidence in commanders to properly execute the program.

	b.  The criteria for military awards are set forth in statutes, executive orders, and appropriate regulations.  The criteria for the three highest valor awards are established by law and have not changed from what they were in past conflicts.  Army regulation and policy establish the standards by which those awards are processed, approved, and presented.  This consistency upholds the heritage of the awards and the legacy of the heroes who have earned them.

	c.  Army policy allows any Soldier to recommend another Soldier for an award.  The Army's awards program relies on those with first-hand knowledge of a Soldier's heroic or valorous action to recommend the Soldier for the appropriate award.  Award recommendations are sent up through the Soldier's chain of command to company, battalion, brigade, division, and corps commanders.  Commanders at every level of review can recommend approval or upgrade of the award based upon their authority.  Commanders with authority to approve awards also have the authority to downgrade or disapprove awards based on their judgment, knowledge, and the criteria established for the award.  Command involvement is critical for program success.

2.  The Bronze Star Medal 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 n military operations involving conflict with an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  The Army Commendation Medal is awarded to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who distinguishes himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service.

3.  As evidenced by the above descriptions, there exists a very fine distinction between the Bronze Star Medal and the Army Commendation Medal.  Often times, the degree of heroism required for a particular award is blurred and subject to personal interpretation.  What is not subject to interpretation is the selfless sacrifice demonstrated by all recipients of the awards for valor.  All recipients are, without doubt, true American heroes.  The applicant's valor and courage on 2 May 1967 under extremely hazardous conditions is acknowledged and applauded; he is truly an American hero.  However, it is extremely difficult to make the necessary distinctions as to whether a particular act deserves one award vice the other.  

4.  In this case, the applicant's record shows he was clearly cited for heroism in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force in Vietnam.  A decision was made to award him the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device.  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 the applicant's actions were so noteworthy as to warrant award of the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device. 

5.  The applicant's award has since been reviewed and re-reviewed for an upgrade to the Bronze Star Medal.  However, the Army Decorations Board determined the degree of action and service rendered by the applicant did not meet the criteria for award of the Bronze Star Medal.  Based on the board's recommendation, the Commanding General, HRC, on behalf of the Secretary of the Army disapproved award of the Bronze Star Medal affirming that the previously-approved award of the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device was the appropriate recognition for the applicant's heroic actions.

6.  The Army Decorations Board was able to evaluate the applicant's act of heroism, including the statements the applicant now submits to this Board.  The board of seasoned senior members opined that the applicant's actions did not rise to the level necessary to merit an upgrade to the Bronze Star Medal.  

7.  There is no change in the account of the applicant's actions in 1967 or new evidence presented that would suggest an error or an injustice was committed by all three echelons of the Army, tactical (4th Infantry Division chain of command), operational (HRC Army Decorations Board), or strategic (ABCMR).  As such, after a thorough review of the applicant's actions, the Board affirms the decision that the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device remains the appropriate award.  









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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120002885, on 14 August 2012.

2.  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.



      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20130001035



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130001035



9


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1