IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140021377 


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 Purple Heart.

2.  As a new issue, he requests award of the Air Medal and correction of his 
DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his specialty as a crew chief.  He also requests a personal hearing.

3.  The applicant states:

	a.  Change to the MOS: He was not a Helicopter Mechanic.  As part of his claim he includes orders showing his assignment as a crew chief.  He also includes flight physicals to support his claim.  Additionally, he is enclosing a statement written by a fellow crew chief and photographs. 

	b.  The Air Medal:  He is entitled to this particular medal because as a mechanic and later crew chief he flew enough hours to deserve the recognition.  He flew many, many hours in Chu Lai, Vietnam, as well as in Aschaffenburg, Germany.  He spent 3 years in this field.  It would be ironic to think he never flew. Even in maintenance, the motto was: If you fix it, you fly in it.  The Board should read his fellow crew chief's letter where they flew in Germany.  All these hours were accounted by signing their flight logs.  Standard procedure required the pilot and crew chief and door gunners to sign these logs.  It was utilized to figure out when mandatory inspections were due and signed off on their aircraft. 

	c.  He also earned a Purple Heart.  It is documented in his medical records.  It showed when it happened.  He spent several weeks with an eye patch and is part of his service-connection claim.  He has a scar to show it happened.  The incident was covered under the requirements of a Purple Heart recipient.  One of their crew led him around until a rocket and mortar attack all clear sounded.  He spent several minutes in a bunker, where the crew member took him.  Later someone was assigned to take him to medical.  The incident should be part of the daily logs when the incident occurred.  The company clerk came to him, so he could sign the documentation.  The only thing he told him was that he had signed a form so that his family would not be notified.  All documentation was taken care of by the attending medics and company clerk.

	d.  He only wants something he feels and was told would be awarded.  He was a mechanic and a crew chief.  He was not responsible for the records be written correctly, that support all claims.  He thinks he still has the evidence to show things happened and reason for the awards.  He was told in Vietnam that he would do "On the Job Training" and this would give him credit for his flight time.  He was taken out on a Huey Gunship to learn how to shoot with an M-60 Machine Gun, drop phosphorous grenades, and experience the helicopters reaction during a rocket launch.  During this time, the Marines were doing an amphibious assault on a place south of Chu Lai called Riverboat South.  He assisted them because they were receiving ground fire.  He fired the M-60, 45 cal., M-16, and learned how to drop flares with timers.  He flew several flare missions, resupply, and recon mission patrolling Highway one.  This is why he thinks he deserves some type of recognition.  He signed the Flight Logs after each mission.  In Aschaffenburg, Germany, he signed all the flight logs and they were turned in.  He was considered a crew chief and was not responsible for keeping up with the flight hours.  He was told what to wear on his uniform for the purpose of being identified as a Helicopter Crew Chief.  The first sergeant had daily inspections.  Being out of uniform would bring serious consequences.  His first sergeant insisted in wearing the proper uniform according to assignments.

	e.  This may sound irrelevant to some people, but for him it was real and he still lives it at night.  The things a person lives through during combat situations, never lets him forget.  Some of his friends lost their lives, something he never forgets.  He even had a friend shoot himself in front of him.  He knew he had a problem and was seeking help, but it was a bit late for him.  His reputation and his role are important to him.  He will go in front of anyone that questions his claims.  If the Board deems it necessary, he will go to Washington to back up his claims.

4.  The applicant provides:

* Report of Medical Examination (Previously submitted)
* Multiple photographs (Previously submitted)
* Chronological Records of Medical care (Previously submitted)
* Statement from Mr. PAM (New evidence)

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 AR2000040903 on 12 September 2000 and Docket Number AR20011058318 on 2 October 2001.

	a.  Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth procedures for processing requests for correction of military records.  Paragraph 2-15b governs requests for reconsideration.  This provision of the regulation allows an applicant to request reconsideration of an earlier ABCMR decision if the request is received within one year of the ABCMR's original decision and it has not previously been reconsidered.

	b.  The ABCMR records show that the applicant previously requested award of the Purple Heart (ABCMR Docket AR2000040903); however, his request was denied on 12 September 2000.  The records also show his previous request for reconsideration (of the same issue) was acted upon in ABCMR Docket Number AR2001058318 on 2 October 2001.  This decision on the request for reconsideration was the final administrative action taken by the Secretary of the Army.  There is no further action contemplated by the ABCMR since he is not eligible for further reconsideration by this Board. 

	c.  The ABCMR records further show he submitted three other requests for reconsideration of the same issue:  ABCMR Docket Number AR20060004364, on 13 October 2006 and ABCMR Docket Number AR201000015753, on 
7 December 2010.  In each case, by letter, the applicant was advised that the decision on the request for reconsideration was the final administrative action taken by the Secretary of the Army and that there was no further action contemplated by this Board since he was no longer eligible for reconsideration.

	d.  The Board reiterates its position that the applicant is not eligible for reconsideration and this portion of his application will not be discussed further in these Proceedings. 

2.  With respect to the applicant's request for award of the Air Medal, based upon his application, the evidence of record, and accompanying supporting documents he provides, it does not appear he was recommended for or awarded the Air Medal. 

	a.  Paragraph 2-5, Section II, Army Regulation 15-185, the regulation under which this Board operates, states that the Board will not consider any application if it determines that the member has not exhausted all administrative remedies available to him/her.  There is no evidence that the applicant has submitted a request to the Army Decorations Board, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and was denied relief. 

	b.  Title 10, U.S. Code, (USC) section 1130 allows the Service Secretary concerned to review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that is otherwise precluded from consideration by limitations established by law or policy.  In order to request an award under Title 10 USC 1130, the applicant must submit a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award).  The DA Form 638 should clearly identify the applicant's unit, the period of assignment, and the award being recommended.  A narrative of the actions or period for which the member is requesting recognition must accompany the DA Form 638.  In addition, the award request should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates and related documents.  Corroborating evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders, and fellow Soldiers who had personal (i.e., eyewitness) knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request.

	c.  Title 10, USC section 1130 also requires that a request of this nature be referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress.   Therefore, the applicant must submit his request through a Member of Congress who will send it to HRC, ATTN: AHRC-PDP-A, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40122.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rest with the requestor.

	d.  Because he has not submitted his request in accordance with Title 10, USC, section 1130, and has not subsequently been denied relief, his request to this Board for award of the Air Medal is premature and this issue will not be discussed further in these  Proceedings. 

3.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 September 1968.  He completed basic combat training and then proceeded to Fort Rucker, AL, for completion of advanced individual training.

4.  He completed the 10-week Aircraft Maintenance Apprentice Course from on or about 1 December 1968 to on or about 28 February 1969.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67A (Aircraft Maintenance Repairman).

5.  He served in Vietnam from on or about 10 March 1969 to on or about 9 March 1970.  He was assigned to the 176th Aviation Company.

6.  On 2 March 1970, Headquarters, Americal Division published Special Orders (SO) Number 61 awarding him primary MOS (PMOS) 67N (Helicopter Maintenance/Repairer) and withdrawing MOS 67A, effective 29 August 1969.

7.  On 18 March 1970, Headquarters, Americal Division published SO Number 77 promoting the applicant to specialist five in MOS 67A, effective 17 February 1970. 

8.  He served in Germany from on or about 20 April 1970 to on or about 23 August 1971.  He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division. 

9.  On 3 March 1971, Headquarters, 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, published Unit Orders Number 2 showing he was awarded a marksmanship badge with the rifle.  The orders listed his MOS as 67N. 

10.  On 8 July 1971, Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division, published SO Number 175, reassigning him to the separation center for separation outprocessing.  The orders listed his MOS as 67N. 

11.  He was honorably released from active duty on 27 August 1971.  His 
DD Form 214 shows in item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) the entry "67N Aircraft Maintenance Repairman)" and item 14 (Education and Training Completed) shows the entry "Aircraft Maintenance Apprentice, 67A, 10 weeks, 1969." 

12.  On 20 November 2000, he was issued a DD Form 215 (Correction to 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that added his service dates in Vietnam and additional awards. 

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) at the time established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Chapter 2 of the regulation in effect at the time contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated, in pertinent part, that item 23a shows the primary MOS code number and title and item 25 shows the education and training completed by the Soldier. 




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was formally trained in and held MOS 67A.  The title of this MOS was "Aircraft Maintenance Apprentice."  Since he completed formal training in this MOS, the training course is properly listed in item 25 of his DD Form 214.  There is no evidence in his records and he provides none to show he completed any other MOS training. 

2.  Although he initially held PMOS 67A, during his Vietnam tour and prior to his release from active duty he was awarded PMOS 67N, which is titled "Aircraft Maintenance Repairman."  He held this MOS as his PMOS at the time of his release from active duty.  Therefore, his primary specialty MOS is also correctly shown in item 23a of his DD Form 214.

3.  All MOS 67 series during the Vietnam era pertained to aircraft maintenance and repair.  There was no unique or separate MOS for "crew chief" or "assistant crew chief."  This is a duty title.

4.  His service in Vietnam and his contention are noted.  Likewise, his flight physicals and photographs are also noted.  However, his DD Form 214 appears to be administratively correct and he provides no substantiating evidence to show it is in error.  Therefore, he should not be granted the requested relief. 
While the available evidence is insufficient for awarding the applicant the
Air Medal, this in no way affects the applicant’s right to pursue his claim for the Air Medal by submitting a request through his Member of Congress under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, 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)                                         AR20140021377





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140021377



7


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1