BOARD DATE:	  28 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015628 


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, in effect, award of the Air Medal and its addition to his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).

2.  The applicant states an award was overlooked in consequence of extenuating circumstances during work in liaison with the 19th Air Commando Squadron.  The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) sent the eligibility for an Air Medal in support of the U.S. Marine Corps unit in reaching the crew membership of the completed flight mission.   

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* letter from Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center
* Special Orders (SO) Number 15 (two copies)
* Certificate of Achievement
* four letters from the U.S. Air Force (USAF)
* three letters from the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), Freedom of Information/Privacy Office
* Transmittal of and/or Entitlement to Awards
* Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) – Record of Proceedings
* three emails
* letter from the AF Historical Research Agency
* letter to the National Security Agency
* air mail postage receipt
* Special Activities document
* three letters to the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA)
* NPRC information for award of the Air Medal

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 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 provide in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of the cases 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 sufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 June 1964 for 4 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 05H (Morse interceptor).  

3.  He provided a copy of a letter, dated 28 September 1964, wherein his parents were congratulated on his outstanding record during his basic training.

4.  He served in Vietnam in MOS 05H from:

* 12 April 1965 through 10 May 1966 and was assigned to Company A, 8th Radio Research (RR) Unit.
* 10 November 1967 through on or about 23 June 1968 and was assigned to the:

* 175th RR Company, from 14 November 1967 through 29 January 1968 
* 138th Aviation Company (RR), 224th Aviation Battalion, from 7 February through 24 March 1968
* 330th RR Company from 25 March through 23 June 1968

5.  His records contain and he also provided two copies of SO Number 15, issued by Headquarters, 330th RR Battalion on 15 January 1968, assigning him to the 224th Aviation Battalion, Saigon, Vietnam, with a report date of 30 January 1968.

6.  He further provided a copy of a Certificate of Achievement, dated 1 November 1968, he was issued for rendering meritorious service in Vietnam from 17 March through 1 June 1968.

7.  He was released from active duty in pay grade E-5 on 20 June 1968 and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve.  He was credited with completing 3 years, 11 months, and 26 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 lists the:

* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal
* Vietnam Campaign Medal
* Army Good Conduct Medal
* Meritorious Unit Citation

8.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) lists all awards listed on his DD Form 214 and the two overseas service bars and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

9.  He also provided copies of the following:

   a.  A letter, dated 16 January 2004, wherein a USAF Freedom of Information Act Manager acknowledged receipt of his 2 January 2004 request for records from the Defense Information Security Program at Maxwell Air Force Base on the C-123 downed.

   b.  A letter, dated 23 May 2007, wherein a USAF Freedom of Information Act Manager acknowledged receipt of his 7 May 2007 request for information on a flight mission without orders.

   c.  A letter, dated 4 January 2008, wherein the U.S. Army INSCOM Freedom of Information/Privacy Office acknowledged receipt of his request for information to help him obtain an “Air Valor” or USAF equivalent award for his flights with the 224th Aviation Battalion.  He was advised that his request was being forwarded to the Department of the AF.

   d.  A letter, dated 17 July 2008, wherein the Deputy Chief, Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liaison, acknowledged receipt of his requests for an AF award.

   e.  A Transmittal of and/or Entitlement to Awards, dated 30 June 2011, wherein he was advised of his entitlement to the Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon.

10.  In a letter, dated 28 April 2011, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), advised him that official documentation, such as orders assigning him personally to flying duties in Vietnam, a DA Form 759-1 (Individual Flight Record and Individual Flight Certificate-Army), or USARV Form 131-R (Awards and Qualification Record (Air Medal)), verification of the type of combat hours/mission he completed, an official unit report of the action, an original or reconstructed DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) with proposed citation, eyewitness affidavits, narratives, and former wartime chain-of-command endorsements were required in order to make a determination of his entitlement to an award of the Air Medal for his service.

11.  On 28 April 2011, HRC issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) adding the following awards to his DD Form 214:

* Vietnam Service Medal with one silver service star and one bronze service star
* Expert Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
* Meritorious Unit Commendation with two bronze oak leaf clusters
* Navy Unit Commendation
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation

12.  On 9 February 2012, in response to his request for award of the Air Medal with "V" Device, Army Commendation Medal, and Bronze Star Medal, the ABCMR determined the following:

		(1)  That there was insufficient evidence in the available records and the evidence he provided to award him the Air Medal with "V" Device and its addition to his DD Form 214.  Also, his service records gave no indication he was recommended for or awarded the Army Commendation Medal and Bronze Star Medal during his period of service in Vietnam.  

		(2)  As he was previously advised by HRC, Awards and Decorations Branch, he must provide documentation, to include general orders assigning him personally to flying duties in Vietnam and verification of the type of combat hours/missions he completed for HRC to make a determination of his entitlement to award of the Air Medal for any flight missions.

		(3)  While the available evidence was insufficient for awarding him those awards he had the right to pursue his claim for those awards by submitting a request through a Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), section 1130.

13.  He further provided copies of the following:

   a.  Three emails, dated 6, 12, and 22 January 2014, wherein he was advised by a Department of the Army staff member that he was providing letters and pictures pertaining to the classified proceedings in liaison with the USAF 19th Air Commando Squadron with a reference of the verbal report made at Tan Son Nuht Air Base.  

   b.  A letter, 20 March 2014, wherein the AF Historical Research Agency acknowledged receipt of his letter, dated 15 March 2014.

   c.  A letter, dated 31 March 2014, wherein he advised the National Security Agency that they had an “undecorated Air Medal eligibility” pertaining to work in liaison with the 19th Air Commando Squadron at Tan Son Nuht Air Base.
   
   d.  A letter, dated 7 April 2014, wherein the U.S. Army INSCOM Freedom of Information/Privacy Office acknowledged receipt of his request and advised him that his request was being forwarded to the USAF Air Mobility Command for action.

   e.  A Freedom of Information Act memorandum, dated 7 April 2014, wherein the Commander, USAF Air Mobility Command, was advised that the enclosed record had been reviewed and found not to be under the purview of INSCOM and it was being referred to them for action.

   f.  A letter, dated 28 April 2014, wherein the USAF Air Mobility Command advised him that they were not the correct office for his request and he must submit the documents and request to the AF Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).

   g.  A Special Activities document which detailed a massive personnel airdrop in Vietnam on 31 January and provided a description of the event and the aircraft.

   h.  An air mail postage receipt, dated 6 June 2014, which shows he mailed correspondence to the ABCMR.

   i.  A letter, dated 17 June 2014, wherein the AFBCMR advised him of receipt of his request; however, since the time in question was pertaining to his Army enlistment, the AFBCMR could not make a decision in his case.

j.  A letter, dated 21 June 2014, wherein he stated:

		(1)  The enclosed USAF declassified document IRIS 455442 should have been sent by the 315th Air Commando Wing to the 509th Group at Tan Son Nuht Air Base to refer to U.S. Army personnel on board a downed aircraft assigned to the USAF.  Even though the Navy decorated them on behalf of the USMC for their support provided on board in liaison with USAF aircraft, the USAF were reversing the purview of the Army without providing an explanation.  

		(2)  The C-123 was downed before the 19th Commando Squadron returned to Tan Son Nuht Air Base from the evacuation to Phan Rank Air Base.  An Army unit returned fire in Tan Son Nuht as the 509th Group Headquarters was made aware of the flight mission completed that he organized at Cam Rahn Bay Air Base.

		(3)  The NPRC sent the Air Medal eligibility information for the work in crew membership on board USAF aircraft during the assignment.  That information was not provided with this request.

   k.  A letter, dated 1 October 2014, wherein he advised the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) that two Soldiers assigned to the 5th Special Forces Group earned their Combat Infantryman Badge on the day the C-123 was downed.  

   l.  A letter, dated 6 April 2015, wherein he advised the ARBA that he was submitting declassified exemplary conditions of continuous enemy rocket fire with two evaluations and the maintenance record of the downed C-123.  That information was not provided with this request.
   
   m.  A letter, dated 15 April 2015, wherein he advised the ARBA that the 509th Group made security arrangements with the 19th Air Commando Squadron at Tan Son Nuht Air Base on the "need to know" basis of operations in liaison.  Even the 224th Aviation Battalion commanding officer did not have the "need to know."

   n.  NPRC information for award of the Air Medal which cited the criteria for the award of the Air Medal.

14.  A 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 award orders for the Air Medal and/or Air Medal with "V" Device pertaining to the applicant. 
15.  U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided guidelines for award of the Air Medal.  It established that passenger personnel who did not participate in an air assault were not eligible for the award based upon sustained operations.  It defined terms and provided guidelines for the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours.  Twenty-five category I missions (air assault and equally dangerous missions) and accrual of a minimum of 25 hours of flight time while engaged in category I missions was the standard established for which sustained operations were deemed worthy of recognition by an award of the Air Medal.  However, the regulation was clear that these guidelines were considered only a departure point.

	a.  Combat missions were divided into three categories.  A category I mission was defined as a mission performed in an assault role in which a hostile force was engaged and was characterized by delivery of ordnance against the hostile force, or delivery of friendly troops or supplies into the immediate combat operations area.  A category II mission was characterized by support rendered a friendly force immediately before, during or immediately following a combat operation.  A category III mission was characterized by support of friendly forces not connected with an immediate combat operation but which must have been accomplished at altitudes which made the aircraft at times vulnerable to small arms fire, or under hazardous weather or terrain conditions.

	b.  To be recommended for award of the Air Medal, an individual must have completed a minimum of 25 category I missions, 50 category II missions, or     100 category III missions.  Since various types of missions would have been completed in accumulating flight time toward award of an Air Medal for sustained operations, different computations would have had to be made to combine category I, II and III flight time and adjust it to a common denominator.

16.  Army Regulation 600-08-22 (Military Awards) states the:

* Air Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity in or with the U.S. Army, will have distinguished himself or herself by meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight
* "V" device is a bronze block letter worn on the Air Medal for heroic acts or valorous deeds not warranting awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross or the Bronze Star Medal with "V" device

17.  Title 10, USC, section 1130 provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion.  Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration.  Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award.
18.  The requests, with a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), must be submitted through a Member of Congress to:  Commander, HRC, ATTN:  AHRC-PDP-A, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY  40122.  The unit must be clearly identified, along with the period of assignment and the recommended awards.  A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638.  Requests should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents.  Supporting evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders, and fellow Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the facts relative to the request.  The burden and costs of researching and assembling supporting information rest with the applicant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions and the documentation he submitted were carefully considered.  However, there is no evidence of record and he did not provide sufficient evidence showing he was recommended for or awarded the Air Medal during his periods of service in Vietnam.

2.  Notwithstanding his contentions and his sincerity, in the absence of his individual flight record or documentary evidence confirming his aerial flight participation, the type of missions, or the number of flying hours, there is insufficient evidence to establish his entitlement to the Air Medal.  Also, there was no evidence found either in his service personnel record or in ADCARS to support the requested relief.  

3.  While the available evidence is insufficient for awarding him the Air Medal and its addition to his DD Form 214, this in no way affects his right to pursue his claim for the Air Medal by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, USC, section 1130.

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)                                         AR20140015628





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015628



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1