BOARD DATE:  29 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150001250 


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 an upgrade of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) he was awarded for action on 21 April 1968 to the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).

2.  The applicant states the DFC he was awarded for action in the A Shau Valley in Vietnam should be upgraded to the DSC.  Due to the nature of his action at the time, his chain of command did not have time to properly prepare requests for awards.  He has provided the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) and a signed notarized letter from Specialist Six (SP6) S_____ W____ who was the crew chief/gunner on the CH47 helicopter for which he (the applicant) was the flight engineer.  SP6 W____ witnessed his (the applicant's) extraordinary valorous action on 21 April 1986 by saving the lives of the co-pilot and the entire crew during a mission at LZ (Landing Zone) Tiger.  Many letters and the DA Form 638 have been sent to the Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He has complied all the HRC’s requirements and they have again denied approval of his request.

3.  He provides:

* USARV Form 157-R (Recommendation for Decoration for Valor or Merit)
* Proposed Citation for the DFC
* General Orders for the DFC, dated 9 July 1969
* DFC Award Certificate
* DFC Award Citation
* General Orders for the DFC for the co-pilot of the aircraft
* Information paper, subject:  A Shau Valley-Private First Class (PFC), by J___ F__
* five letters of support reporting the applicant's actions on 21 April 1968
* his statement of the events on 21 April 1968
* newspaper article relating to the applicant's actions on 21 April 1968
* HRC letter, dated 15 April 1991, concerning entitlement to a 10% increase in retired pay due to award of the DFC
* State of West Virginia, Office of the Adjutant General letter, dated 
30 August 1995, relating to the applicant's 10% increase
* Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, letter dated 21 May 1996, concerning the 10% increase in retired pay
* his 9 May 2011 letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs requesting an upgrade of his 21 April 1968 DFC 
* DA Form 638, undated, signed by Sergeant (SGT) S______ W____, Crew Chief/Gunner, recommending the applicant for award of the DSC
* email from HRC concerning the DSC
* HRC, Awards and Decorations Branch letter, dated 14 November 2012
* letter to the applicant from his Member of Congress, dated 27 February 2013
* HRC, Awards and Decoration Branch letter, dated 6 January 2015

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 is a retired Regular Army sergeant first class (SFC).

3.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in Vietnam from 5 July 1967 through 5 July 1968 and from 8 December 1969 through 
7 December 1970.  


4.  On 9 July 1968, Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, issued General Orders 7705 announcing award of the DFC to the applicant for heroism in action on 
21 April 1968.  These orders show he was serving as a specialist six (SP6) in Company A, 228th Aviation Battalion (Assault Support Helicopter).  The citation published in the orders reads as follows:

For heroism while participating in aerial flight evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty in the Republic of Vietnam.  Specialist Six H______ distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 21 April 1968, while serving as a flight engineer on a CH-47 armed helicopter during a combat support mission in the A Shau Valley, Republic of Vietnam.  While participating in the resupply of an infantry unit that was heavily engaged with a large enemy force, Specialist H______ exposed himself to the intense enemy ground fire as his aircraft flew through adverse weather conditions and hazardous mountain terrain in order to deliver its vital cargo.  When a crewmember was seriously wounded by enemy ground fire, Specialist H______ assisted in the administration of first aid to his injured comrade until they could reach adequate medical facilities.  His display of bravery and devotion to duty is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army.

5.  The applicant was retired due to length of service on 31 May 1972.  His 
DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and corrected by a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) shows his awards as –

* Distinguished Flying Cross (2 Awards)
* Bronze Star Medal
* Army Commendation Medal
* Korean Service Medal with three bronze service stars
* United Nations Service Medal
* National Defense Service Medal (2 Awards)
* Vietnam Service Medal with one silver and one bronze service star
* Army Good Conduct Medal (6 Awards)
* Republic of Korea War Service Medal
* Parachutist Badge
* Air Medal (19 Awards)
* Meritorious Unit Commendation (2 Awards)
* Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960)
* Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation (3 Awards)

6.  His official military personnel file is void of documentation showing he was recommended for award of the DSC.  

7.  His records contain a copy of a 13 February 2012 email from Lieutenant Commander G____ L. D_____, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired), which states, in effect, that on 21 April 1968 he was the aircraft commander of the CH-47 upon which the applicant served as the flight engineer during the action at LZ Tiger, in the A Shau Valley, for which the applicant and the rest of the crew received the DFC.  He further states that he reviewed the criteria for award of the DSC and must conclude that none of those who were on board the aircraft performed any action rising to the level of merit for award of the nation's second highest award for valor.  It is his opinion that the DFC that he and his crew received was appropriate for their action.  He does not recommend an upgrade of the applicant’s DFC to the DSC; he believes it would diminish the actions of those who truly deserve the DSC.

8.  In support of his request the applicant provides an Information Paper, subject:  A Shau Valley-PFC C________, by J___ R. F__, which is a tribute to a Solider killed in action during the 1st Cavalry Operation Delaware in A Shau Valley on
24 April 1968 and letters of support from:

   a.  Chief Warrant Officer Four (CW4) D____ F. C______, USA Retired, who states that he was the helicopter pilot and the applicant was the flight engineer of the CH-47 Chinook on 21 April 1968 during a tactical emergency mission.  Their helicopter came under intense enemy fire and he was hit in the lower leg.  He began to bleed profusely and was not totally coherent for a few minutes.  He remembers the applicant applying a tourniquet to his leg.  The applicant guided the helicopter the last few hundred feet during the approach segment and they completed their mission and delivered the vital cargo.  The applicant contributed to saving his life that day. 

	b.  Lieutenant Commander G___ L. D_____, who states he was the aircraft commander of the CH-47 on 21 April 1968.  He witnessed the applicant's actions in assisting CW4 C______ and acting as the co-pilot on that day.  He reports the applicant was a tremendous asset to him and the rest of the crew that day.  His cool calm demeanor in the face of heavy enemy fire demonstrated a high degree of professionalism and enabled them to accomplish their assigned mission.

	c.  Mr. V_____ C_____, who states he was the door gunner on the CH-47 helicopter on 21 April 1968.  He witnessed the applicant remove CW4 C______ from the pilot seat.  The applicant placed the tourniquet on his leg, and relocated him to the back of the cargo area while under intense enemy fire.  The applicant then returned to the pilot's seat and assisted the co-pilot safely out of the area.  Without the applicant's cool professionalism on that day the aircraft and all on board may have been lost.

	d.  Mr. S______ J. W____, who states he was a specialist five (SP5) crew chief on the applicant's helicopter on 21 April 1968.  He witnessed the applicant take off his belt, wrap it around the co-pilot's leg, and pull him off the controls.  The applicant handed the wounded co-pilot off to him and the gunner and he jumped into the co-pilot's seat and helped gained control of the aircraft.  Clearly they all owe their lives to the applicant for his heroic actions on that day.

	e. CW4 C______, who provided a second letter in which he again recalled the events of 21 April 1968, restating the his earlier recollection.

9.  The applicant also provided:

   a.  His statement in which he reports that he put a tourniquet on CW4 C______'s leg, took him off the controls of the aircraft, and moved him to the back of the aircraft.  He took CW4 C______'s seat and assisted in flying the aircraft.
   
	b.  A copy of a newspaper article reporting on the reuniting of the applicant and CW4 C______.  The article reports the applicant was a hero and CW4 C______ acknowledges the applicant saved his life that day (21 April 1968).

   c.  A 21 May 1996 ASA (M&RA) letter informing the applicant that he was not eligible for a 10% increase in his retirement pay because his DFC was awarded for combat-related heroism.  He was eligible for the DSC for his actions on 
21 April 1968, but his command did not recognize the act as extra ordinary heroism.

   d.  An undated DA Form 638 recommending the applicant for award of the DSC for his actions on 21 April 1968, signed by J. W____, crew chief/gunner.

   e.  A 14 November 2012 HRC Awards and Decorations Branch letter in which the applicant was informed HRC was unable to send his request to upgrade his DFC to a DSC to the Army Decorations Board because he needed to provide one more signed and notarized eyewitness statement.
   
	f.  A 27 February 2013 letter from his Member of Congress asking the applicant to complete a privacy act release form.

	g.  A 6 January 2015 HRC Awards and Decorations Branch letter informing the applicant that they were unable to forward his request for reconsideration to upgrade his DFC to the Army Decorations Board.  The letter further states, "As stated in our previous correspondence with you on multiple occasions, we still require an additional, sworn statement regarding your actions on 21 April 1968."

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states:

	a.  The DSC is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States not justifying award of the Medal of Honor.  The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.

	b.  The DFC is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguishes himself or herself by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight.  The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from his or her comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

11.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, stated the Commanding General (CG), USARV, was authorized to approve award of the DFC and DSC.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.  Shortly after the applicant's heroic acts, the CG, 1st Cavalry Division, awarded him the DFC.

2.  In a 13 February 2012 email, the aircraft commander of the CH-47 on 21 April 1968 stated that he had reviewed the criteria for award of the DSC and concluded that the DFC he and his crew were awarded was appropriate for their actions.  He did not recommend upgrading the applicant’s DFC to the DSC.  Approval of such an award would diminish the actions of those who truly deserved the DSC.


3.  A thorough review of the available documentation shows the account of the applicant's actions has remained substantially the same since 1969 and there is no evidence that would suggest any error or injustice in the original approval authority's decision to award him the DFC.  This being the case, there is no basis for further consideration of an upgrade of the applicant's DFC.

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 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)                                         AR20110016882



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150001250



7


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1