IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  13 November 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006126 


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 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show:

* he completed 8 weeks of military occupational specialty (MOS) training at the U.S. Army Aviation School (USAAVNS), Fort Rucker, AL, versus the        5 weeks that are shown
* he completed the MOS 67N (Single Rotary Turbine Helicopter Mechanic) qualification course
* he served as a crew chief on fixed-wing aircraft during his service in the Republic of Vietnam
* any and all service medals to which he is entitled for his service in Vietnam

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his records are incorrect and/or incomplete because his personnel records were lost or never put in his file.  

3.  The applicant provides: 

* his DD Form 214
* two self-authored statements
* an extract of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) 
* orders for his attendance at the Aircraft Maintenance Crewman course for 5 weeks, with a class roster for that class 
* five pages of photos showing his service at Fort Rucker, AL 
* orders reassigning the applicant to Vietnam
* a DD Form 214 belonging to a former service member

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 in the Army of the United States on 14 July 1965.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67A (Aircraft Maintenance Crewman).  The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4.

3.  Records show he served in the Republic of Vietnam from 13 December 1965 through 12 December 1966.  He was assigned to the 92nd Aviation Company.

4.  His DA Form 20 shows in:

* item 27 (Military Education) - "Acft Maint Crewman, 67A, 5 weeks, 1965"
* item 38 (Record of Assignment)  - the entry "exe" for conduct and efficiency during the entire period following his MOS training
* item 38 is void of any entry showing he served in a crew chief duty position 

5.  On 5 July 1967, he was honorably released from active duty after completing 
1 year, 11 months, and 22days of active service.  His DD Form 214 shows in:

	a.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), and the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Campaign Medal with Device (1960).

	b.  Item 25 (Education and Training):  “USAAVNS, Ft Rucker Alabama, 5 wks [weeks], Acft [aircraft] Maint [maintenance] Crew [crewman].”  

6.  His records do not show that he completed training for MOS 67N.

7.  There is no documentation in his available record that shows he was awarded the AGCM.  There is no evidence of a commander's disqualification for the award.  Additionally, there is no evidence of any convictions by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.

8.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in which he contends:

* he attended basic combat training and advanced individual training with another Soldier who became his friend
* they both attended the same training courses; however, his friend's DD Form 214 shows he completed the MOS 67N course
* his record should show he completed the 67N course 
* his class was chosen to become crew chiefs
* his DD Form 214 does not show his full eight weeks of training 

9.  Additionally, he provides his friend's (a fellow Soldier's) DD Form 214, orders pertaining to his MOS 67A training, and orders that directed his movement to Vietnam.  None of the provided documents address his qualification in MOS 67N, or definitively shows he completed additional training beyond the 5 weeks already cited as part of his MOS 67A qualification course.  

10.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, provides that the AGCM is awarded to individuals who have completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  The enlisted person must have had all “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states a bronze service star is worn on the appropriate service ribbon, to include the VSM, for each credited campaign.  The Vietnam campaigns are listed in appendix B.  His service in Vietnam coincided with the following three campaigns:

* Vietnam Defense Campaign (8 March - 24 December 1965)  
* Vietnamese Counteroffensive (25 December 1965 - 30 June 1966)
* Vietnamese Counteroffensive Phase (1 July 1966 - 31 May 1967)

12.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in the Republic of Vietnam.  This document shows the unit to which the applicant was assigned, 92nd Aviation Company was cited for an award of Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC), based on Department of the Army General Orders Number 17, dated 1968.

13.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows he is entitled to wear the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, based on Department of the Army General Orders Number 8, dated 1974.

14.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  It provided for entering service schools, including dates and major courses which were completed successfully during the period covered by the DD Form 214.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for correction of various aspects of his record was carefully considered.

2.  A review of his record reveals he completed a period of honorable service during which he received all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings and had no convictions by court-martial.  There is no evidence he was disqualified by his chain of command from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal.  Therefore, he is entitled to the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period 14 July 1965 through 13 July 1967 and correction of his records to show this award.  

3.  He was awarded the VSM and he participated in three campaigns while serving in Vietnam.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show his already-awarded VSM with three bronze service stars.

4.  General orders awarded his unit the MUC and the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show these unit awards.

5.  His record does not show nor does he provide sufficient evidence that shows he completed 8 weeks of MOS training (versus 5 weeks), he gained qualification in MOS 67N, or that he served as a crew chief during his service in the RVN.  Therefore, there is an insufficient basis to correct his record to grant this portion of the requested relief.   




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

   a.  awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for the period  14 July 1965 through 13 July 1967;

   b.  amending his DD Form 214 to delete the Vietnam Service Medal and add the:

* Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award)
* Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars
* Meritorious Unit Commendation
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to showing he completed          8 weeks of MOS training versus 5 weeks, he gained qualification in MOS 67N, or that he served as a crew chief during his service in the RVN.  





      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140006126





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006126



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1