DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100

 

AEG:jdh
Docket No: 6956-98
24 June 1999

 

Dear SURED

A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application
for correction of your late father’s naval record and recommended that your application be
denied, as set forth in the attached report dated 18 December 1998. The Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs conducted an independent review of the
Board’s proceedings and by her memorandum of 21 June 1999, approved the panel’s
recommended action. A copy of the Assistant Secretary’s memorandum is also attached.

You are advised that reconsideration of the case will be granted only upon the presentation of
new and material evidence not previously considered by the Board and then, only upon the
recommendation of the Board and approval by the Assistant Secretary .

It is regretted that a more favorable reply cannot be made.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20370-5100

AEG
Docket No: 6956-98
18 December 1998

 

From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records
To: Secretary of the Navy

Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD OF

Ref: (a) 10 U.S.C. 1552

 

Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attchs. A-O
(2) NO9B33 Memorandum of 28Sep98 w/encls. 1-24
(3) Case Summary

1. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, the
son of a deceased officer in the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with
this Board requesting, in effect, that his father’s naval record
be corrected to show that he was entitled to wear the Combat
Distinguishing Device (CDD) on his Navy Achievement Medal (NAM)
and Navy Commendation Medal (NCM).

2. The Board, consisting of Messrs. Cali, Whitener and
Neuschafer, reviewed Petitioner’s allegations of error and
injustice on 8 December 1998 and, pursuant to its regulations,
determined that his application should be denied. Documentary
material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures,
naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.

3. The Board, having reviewed all the facts of record pertaining
to Petitioner’s allegations of error and injustice finds as
follows:

a. Before applying to this Board, Petitioner exhausted all
administrative remedies available under existing law and
regulations within the Department of the Navy.

b. Enclosure (1) was filed in a timely manner.

c. Subject began his military career in 1956 by enlisting in
the Navy. Subsequently, he attained the rank of petty officer
first class. In 1962, he was commissioned an ensign and
continued to serve in an excellent manner, advancing in due
course to lieutenant.

da. In October 1964 Subject reported aboard USS JOHN R. CRAIG

(DD-885), and was assigned as weapons officer. In March 1965
CRAIG began a deployment to the Western Pacific area. After

arriving in Vietnamese waters, on 20 July 1965 the ship became
part of a newly formed naval gunfire support unit. The following
statement is taken from CRAIG’s written history:

The mission of this unit was to provide gunfire support for
various U.S. military operations and to indoctrinate
Republic of Viet Nam Military Forces in the employment of
Naval Gunfire Support. During the next twenty days, CRAIG
ranged up and down the Vietnamese coast carrying out this
mission. During this period CRAIG fired over 3300 rounds
of 5 inch illumination and high explosive projectiles at
many targets with devastating results. Records were made
and broken on almost a daily basis, not only in rounds
expended but in rearming at sea as well.

In a detailed after-action report dated 16 August 1965 CRAIG’s
commanding officer (CO), Commander (CDR) J, pointed out that
between 20 July and 10 August 1965 CRAIG conducted 20
bombardments and area or interdiction firings at Viet Cong troop
concentrations, assembly areas or other targets. The ship also
conducted a night illumination firing. The after-action report
also stated that during the foregoing operations CRAIG did not
experience damage, was not brought under enemy fire, and suffered
no personnel casualties.

e. On 15 August 1965 CDR J recommended Subject for the NCM for
meritorious service as weapons officer during combat operations
in Southeast Asia from 10 April to 10 August 1965. On 28 August
1965 the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet approved a lesser
award, the Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Commendation for
Achievement. The citation accompanying this award reads, in
part, as follows:

For meritorious service while serving as Weapons Officer in
(CRAIG) while operating in combat missions supporting the
Republic of Vietnam from 10 April to 10 August 1965...
CRAIG was assigned duties as commander of the Vietnam Naval
Gunfire Support Unit from its inception until the ship’s
departure from the area. (Subject’s) unparalleled
knowledge of the tactical and operational aspects of the
employment of Naval gunfire support contributed
immeasurably to the successful introduction of the Army of
the Republic of Vietnam to the offensive and destructive
advantages of naval gunfire support. CRAIG’s performance as
a naval gunfire support ship, received highly enthusiastic
commendations. (Subject’s) meticulous training procedures,
diligent organizational effort, exceptional leadership
characteristics, and zealous devotion to duty, contributed
immeasurably to the successful culmination of these
assigned tasks and were in keeping with the highest
traditions of the United States Naval Service.

The SECNAV Commendation for Achievement, a ribbon, was authorized

2
for service performed after 1 May 1961 which merited special
recognition, but was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant the
award of the NCM.

f. On 2 October 1965 CDR J was awarded the NCM with Combat "v"
for meritorious achievement during the ship’s combat operations
in Southeast Asia. At this time, the Navy and Marine Corps
Awards Manual, SECNAV Instruction (SECNAVINST) P1650.1C,
authorized the CDD, a bronze letter "Vv," to be worn with the NCM
and certain other medals if the particular award was “for acts or
services involving direct participation in combat operations."
This directive did not require that the citation accompanying the
award specifically authorize the CDD in order for it to be worn.
SECNAVINST P1650.1C did not authorize the CDD to be worn with the
SECNAV Commendation for Achievement.

g. On 5 April 1967 SECNAV Notice (SECNAVNOTE) 1650 (SO-2) was
issued to reflect the approved findings and recommendations of a
committee, chaired by retired Admiral (ADM) George Anderson,
concerning policies pertaining to personal decorations. Several
of the approved recommendations of the Anderson Committee
concerned additional awards, including the following:

The (SECNAV) Commendation for Achievement will be
designated the (NAM) to take precedence after the (NCM).
The criteria for the award of this medal will be expanded
to provide increased recognition of combat and meritorious
achievement. A (CDD) will be authorized.

h. SECNAVNOTE 1650 (SO-2) also stated that a directive would
be issued to implement the approved recommendations of the
Anderson Committee. Accordingly, SECNAVNOTE 1650 (SO-1) was
issued on 17 July 1967 and stated, in part, as follows:

Redesignation of Award. The (SECNAV) Commendation for
Achievement, . . . is hereby redesignated as the (NAM) with
precedence immediately below the (NCM).

Eligibility Criteria. Awarded to enlisted and commissioned
members of the Navy . . . of the grade of Lieutenant
Commander . . . and junior thereto, for service performed
on or after 1 May 1961 .. . The award shall be given for
professional and/or leadership achievement in a combat or
noncombat situation based on sustained performance or
specific achievement of a superlative nature, and shall be
of such merit as to warrant more tangible recognition than
is possible by a fitness report . . . but which does not
warrant a (NCM) or higher .. .

Medal and (CDD). A medal for this award has been struck
and, when procured in quantities for distribution,
instructions for initial distribution will be promulgated.

3
A bronze letter "v" is authorized if the citation is for
acts or services involving direct participation in combat

operations.

Informal coordination with the Awards and Special Projects Branch
(09B33) of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)
reveals that after issuance of this SECNAVNOTE, servicemembers

who had received the SECNAV Commendation for Achievement were,
upon request, issued the NAM.

i. In August 1967 the Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) received
several letters asking whether the Combat "V" was authorized to
be worn with the NAM if the award was made for participation in
combat operations prior to issuance of the 17 July 1967 SECNAV

Note. In his September 1967 request for an eligibility
determination from the Navy Board of Decorations and Medals

(NBDM), CNP stated, in part, as follows:

The Combat "Vv" was first authorized by (SECNAV letter of 13
February 1946) to accompany the awards of the Legion of
Merit and Bronze Star Medal . .. (A)warding commands were
instructed to include such authority within the body of the
citation of subject awards, but provision was also made for
the device to be authorized retroactively.

Since it is considered that those recipients awarded the
(NAM) for participating in campaign operations prior to 17
July 1967 would be unjustifiably penalized, it is strongly
recommended that the (CDD) be authorized to be worn on
retroactive awards of the (NAM), and that .. . (CO’s) be
instructed to make determination of eligibility of
individual recipients on board their respective commands

However, on 15 November 1967 the Senior Member of NBDM rejected
this recommendation and stated, in part, as follows:

. . . (Such individuals) are not authorized to wear the
(CDD) on their Secretary of the Navy Commendation for
Achievement Medals (subsequently redesignated as [NAM]).

At the time (the) awards were approved, the Secretary of
the Navy Commendation for Achievement Medal was not

authorized as a combat award...

j- One week later, on 22 November 1967, another SECNAVNOTE
1650 was promulgated which stated that issuance of a certificate
signed by SECNAV constituted the "final action" for all awards.
Not quite a year later, on 5 September 1968, SECNAV signed such a
certificate which stated that Subject had been awarded the NAM
for “meritorious service from 10 April to 10 August 1965." No
new citation was issued with the NAM. The certificate was

4
forwarded to Petitioner by letter of 30 December 1968, informing
him that the decoration itself had been awarded by delegated

authority.

k. SECNAVINST 1650.1D of 17 December 1968 superseded
SECNAVINST P1650.1C as the Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual.
The new instruction became effective upon receipt. It
incorporated most of the provisions of SECNAVNOTE 1650 (SO-1)
and, accordingly, the latter directive was cancelled. However,
the regulation also stated that the CDD was authorized to be worn
with the NAM only for service after 17 July 1967, the date
SECNAVNOTE 1650 (SO-1) was issued.

1. Subject continued to serve in an outstanding manner and was
promoted to lieutenant commander. In December 1971 he reported
for duty aboard USS BROOKE (DEG 1) as executive officer (XO). In
October 1972, the ship departed San Diego for a deployment to the
Western Pacific as part of the Seventh Fleet. In November,
BROOKE arrived in the Gulf of Tonkin and assumed duties as the
Mutual Support Ship in the Positive Identification Radar Advisory
Zone (PIRAZ). As such, the ship’s duties included air and rescue
surveillance, and readiness to assist in search and rescue
missions during air strikes against North Vietnam. From 27
December 1972 BROOKE acted as "shot-gun" for the PIRAZ ships, USS
TRUXTON (DLGN 35) and later USS JOUETT (DLG 29), supplying needed
ordnance and greater mobility for search-and-rescue operations.
The ship’s history reads as follows concerning the first event of
significance in the new year:

On Jan 6, 1973, an unknown contact was reported .. . to be
steaming out of North Vietnamese waters. BROOKE was
detached to investigate the contact and warn its master of
the possible consequences of his present course. The
vessel was the SS HUNG CHI 150 flying the Chinese Communist
flag and estimated to be outbound from Haiphong, North
Vietnam. BROOKE paralleled her course and speed,
concurrently collecting intelligence data and flying
international signals warning of minefields ahead on the
chance she was involved in coastwise traffic and bound for
another North Vietnamese port. Additionally, the signalmen
attempted to convey the same message by flashing light, as
did the radiomen via International Morse Code...
Finally, BROOKE’s . . . loud hailer was employed to pass
the warning in spoken English. HUNG CHI 150 exhibited the
normal response for such vessel--none at all! BROOKE
continued her efforts while escorting HUNG CHI 150
southward. As HUNG CHI 150 again entered North Vietnamese
waters, BROOKE turned away .. . This was the first of many
such incidents. BROOKE was later commended for the
excellence of her merchant ship reports.

During the next two weeks three similar incidents occurred, each

5
with the same result.

m. BROOKE’s ship’s history reports as follows concerning her
search and rescue skills: ,

On 14 Jan BROOKE was directed . . . to move to a position
approximately twelve miles off the coast of North Vietnam
and assume control of two helicopters - . . These two
units in conjunction with BROOKE were prepositioned as
Search and Rescue assets in anticipation of a large air
strike into the mainland. The strike went in and was
closely monitored throughout BROOKE. . . Occasionally
someone would come up on the circuit with warnings of
surface to air missile (SAM) or anti-air artillery
activity, but always their voices were cool and
professional. Suddenly, one pilot reported that his
aircraft was hit and he was heading to sea. His wingman
sid he could see a hole about one foot in diameter in the
fuselage of the aircraft. With marginal control and
rapidly losing altitude, the pilot of the damaged F4
Phantom skillfully navigated toward the waiting rescue
forces. His report of "feet wet" was a welcome relief to
all listening. BROOKE’s CIC and Navigation teams quickly
plotted the position of the damaged aircraft and the
helicopters were vectored to the site. BROOKE came about
and headed in also. the area was crowded with junks and
there was some concern that the pilots might be in danger
after ejecting. Their ejection and descent was uneventful,
however, and both were recovered within one minute of
entering the water. (The helicopters) immediately returned
to JOUETT where the flyers were given a quick medical
examination and pronounced in good condition * mi

n. Subject detached from BROOKE on 19 February 1973. On 8
April 1973 the CO of BROOKE recommended Subject for the award of
the NCM, but clearly indicated that the CDD was not warranted.
On 17 May 1973 the award recommendation was approved by the
Commander, Seventh Fleet (COMSEVENTHFLT) ; the Combat "V" was
specifically not authorized. The citation accompanying the NCM
reads as follows:

For meritorious achievement as (XO) while attached to and
serving in (BROOKE) from 15 December 1971 to 20 February
1973 including combat operations. (Subject) personally
supervised all facets of the ship’s operations and through
peerless managerial competence and unsurpassed technical
knowledge directed a program which resulted in a ship of
unparalleled material condition and flawless technical
proficiency, while maintaining the highest reenlistment
rate for its type in the Pacific Fleet. During combat
operations, he consistently displayed tireless energy,
patience and professional knowledge in training, organizing

6
and directing the operations of (a) smoothly functioning,
combat ready crew in a variety of demanding roles including
protection of vital units and rescue of downed aviators.
(Subject’s) leadership, professionalism and devotion to
duty reflected great credit upon himself and were in
keeping with the highest traditions of the United States
Naval Service.

Despite the references to “combat operations," the citation did
not authorize the CDD.

o. SECNAVINST 1650.1D, which was still in effect when Subject
received his NCM, tightened the eligibility criteria for the CDD.
In this regard, the directive required not only that the
particular award be for acts or services involving direct
participation in combat operations, but also stated:

Eligibility for decorations and distinguishing devices
awarded for combat shall be based upon acts or services by
individuals who are exposed to personal hazard due to
direct hostile action or the imminence of such action, and
not solely upon the geographical area in which the acts or
services are performed.

The directive also expressly stated that the CDD could be worn
only if it was specifically authorized in the citation
accompanying the award.

p. The issue of what constituted "imminence" of hostile action
was addressed by several commands. In this regard, the
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam stated the following in his
letter of 15 May 1972:

. . . Except for those cases involving direct conflict with
the enemy, eligibility for the (CDD) under the “imminence"
policy should be determined on a case by case basis using
more discriminate criteria than that of mere geographic
proximity to hostile action. The word "imminent" will be
interpreted to mean that the individual has served in a
place and been employed in a duty during a particular time
when this service exposed the individual to personal hazard
from the direct threat of hostile action. The award of the
Combat Action Ribbon or the Purple Heart will be considered
prima facie justification for a recommendation of the (CDD)
on an award for meritorious service that includes the
period of time during which either of these two awards were
earned. In all other cases, originators of award
recommendations will include in the summary of action and
proposed citation a statement setting forth the particulars
justifying the award of the (CDD) on the basis of the
individual’s duties and the time, manner, and place they
were performed, including sufficient detail to allow a

7
determination of the personal hazard to the individual from
the direct threat of hostile action.

The CO of a destroyer, USS BIDDLE, queried COMSEVENTHFLT
concerning the award of the CDD for certain individuals who were
engaged in an incident involving enemy aircraft. On 13 April
1973, COMSEVENTHFLT replied:

(SECNAVINST 1650.1D) states, in part, that in order to be
eligible for the CDD, personnel must be “exposed to
personal hazard due to direct hostile actions, or imminence

of such actions."

COMSEVENTHFLT has consistently held the position that
shipboard personnel must receive hostile fire to qualify as
being exposed to personal hazard or the imminence thereof.
This policy has been applied to all SEVENTHFLT units
initiating an attack on MIGs either by shipboard weapons
systems or as a result of air intercepts conducted by
shipboard air controllers. The CDD has not been authorized
unless positive evidence exists verifying personal hazard
due to direct hostile enemy fire.

(Your prior letter) stated that enemy ordnance was not
expended against BIDDLE . .. ; therefore, the necessary
degree of exposure to or imminence of personal hazard is
considered nonexistent. The total lack of ordnance
expenditure by the MIGs and their failure to press the
alleged attack . . . tends to leave the question open as to
the real mission of the flights.

q. In this regard, Change 6 to SECNAVINST 1650.1D, dated 20
March 1973, further limited eligibility for the Combat "Vv" to
“acts or services by individuals who are exposed to personal
hazard due to direct hostile actions ..." Thus, this change
eliminated the earlier language which conferred eligibility based
on the imminence of hostile action. However, it should be noted
that this change apparently had not reached COMSEVENTHFLT by mid-
April 1973, since the message of 13 April 1973 discussed the
imminence language. Additionally, Change 6 to was not posted by
CNO/09B33, the office with primary cognizance over awards and
decorations, until 20 August 1973. ©

r. Many years later, in 1987, the Commander in Chief, U.S.
Pacific Fleet replied to a request to wear the CDD with a
previously awarded SECNAV Commendation for Achievement by stating
that “the (CDD) is not authorized to be worn with the (SECNAV)
Commendation for Achievement but is authorized for (NAMs) awarded
after 17 July 1967. Accordingly, the request . . . can not be
approved." Also in 1987, Chief of Naval Operations Notice
(OPNAVNOTE) 1650 was issued and stated that "(t)here is a wide
spread misconception that all awards from the Vietnam Era

8
included the (Combat) ‘Vv’. They do not. An individual can only
wear the ‘V’ on an award if the Citation for the award

specifically authorized the ‘v’."

s. Subject continued to serve in a superb manner and was
advanced to admiral. On 16 May 1996, while serving as CNO, he
took his life after learning that two reporters would be
questioning him about whether he had improperly worn the Combat
"Vv" on his NCM and NAM.

t. In June 1996, about a month after Subject committed
suicide, the Navy Times reported that retired ADM Elmo Zumwalt,
who served as CNO from 1970 to 1974, had written a letter to
SECNAV requesting that Subject be posthumously authorized the
Combat "V" on his NCM and NAM. He was also quoted as saying that
While he served as CNO, he verbally "put the word out" that
individuals who received decorations for service on ships in the
Vietnam combat zone were entitled to the Combat "V." However,
the article went on to state that ADM Zumwalt "concedes he did
not have the authority to authorize such distinguishing devices.
Only (SECNAV) has that authority, and it must be granted in
writing on each award citation."

u. On 12 June 1996 CNO/09B33 submitted the following talking
points for a response to ADM Zumwalt’s letter:

(Subject’s) citations did not authorize the "Vv",
"wv" was not authorized for NAM before 1967.
"Vv" was not retroactive for NAM.

Neither citation met the criteria for "V". ". . . solely
on acts or services by individuals exposed to personal
hazard due to direct hostile action, and not upon
geographical area in which the services are performed.

NCM was end of tour award for XO and did not meet criteria
for "Vv",

Even if we could issue, we can’t cover the NAM because the
"Vv" wasn’t available for the NAM at the time of award.

If you do this for (Subject), you have to award "V’s" to
every medal in theater because you have created an
exception to the "no geographical area" exclusion. (1,000s

and 1,000s)

My impression is the general public believes the "V" issue

is a simple mistake and is perfectly willing to forgive it.
To resurrect this would not fix the NAM and would only give
the appearance of fiddling with the system in a vain

9
attempt to clear (Subject’s) name.

v. In May 1998 ADM Zumwalt submitted a memorandum to SECNAV
which states, in part, as follows:

With regard to (Subject’s) (NAM), my statements as the
official military spokesman for the Navy, made it
appropriate, justified, and proper for (him) to wear the
"Vv" on the award. This citation validates my point, the
award was given "For meritorious service while serving as
Weapons Officer in USS JOHN R. CRAIG (DD 885) while
operating in combat missions supporting the Republic of
Vietnam from 10 April to 10 August 1965.

With regard to (Subject’s) (NCM), his citation clearly
authorized the "V" to be worn. "For meritorious
achievement as (XO) while attached to and serving in USS
BROOKE (DEG 1) from 15 December 1971 to 2 February 1973
including combat operations. As (CNO) ([{during] 1970- 74),
I achieved a verbal understanding that directives would be
clarified to stipulate that the "v" could be worn on any
ribbon resulting from operations in the combat zone of
Vietnam. In over 100 visits to ships and shore stations, I
reiterated to Navy personnel time and time again that the
"Vv" was authorized for any ribbon awarded for duty in the
combat theater of Vietnam--on shore and off shore.
(emphasis in text)

This memorandum, along with a memorandum from SECNAV and a
revised transcript of service, were placed in Subject’s record.

w. In September 1998, Petitioner submitted enclosure (1) to
the Board on behalf of his late father. Concerning his father’s
NAM, he points out that SECNAVNOTE 1650 of 17 July 1967
authorized the CDD if the award resulted from direct
participation in combat operations, and that the original award
citation for the SECNAV Commendation for Achievement clearly
indicates that his father was recognized for his actions in
combat. He also states that his father should have been awarded
the Combat “v" for his NCM, given the statement in the citation
that the medal was awarded for his actions as XO during combat
operations. He contends that the omission of specific
authorization for the CDD on the citation was an oversight.
Petitioner also cites the memoranda from ADM Zumwalt and SECNAV
in support of his contention that the CDD should now be
authorized for both the NAM and NCM.

x. On 28 September 1998 CNO/09B33 submitted enclosure (2) to
the Board, recommending that Petitioner’s request be denied.
That memorandum states, in part, as follows:

- + »- When the (NAM) was approved for (Subject), the "v"

10
was not authorized to be used on that award. Therefore, it
is strongly recommended that it not be added at this late
date.

The Combat "V" has been authorized for use on the NCM since
WWII (even before the award was known as the NCM). It is
my recommendation that it not be added to (Subject’s) NCM

. . . (T)he Combat "V" has been subject of (sic) many
interpretations since it was created in WWII.

A handwritten note at the bottom of the memorandum states that
“there have been lots of people who erroneously wore the Combat
‘vi ‘ "

CONCLUSION:

Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the
Board concludes that Petitioner’s request does not warrant
favorable action.

The Board concludes that Subject was not entitled to wear the CDD
on his NAM. First of all, it is clear he was not authorized to
wear the CDD in 1965 when he received the predecessor award, the
SECNAV Commendation for Achievement ribbon, since the CDD was not
authorized for that decoration. The directive which redesignated
this award as the NAM, SECNAV Note 1650 of 17 July 1967, did not
specifically state that the Combat "V" was authorized when an NAM
was substituted for the predecessor ribbon. It is equally clear
that shortly thereafter, NBDM considered the very same issue now
before the Board, and concluded that the Combat "V" was not
authorized when a NAM was issued retroactively. This decision
was reinforced by the issuance of SECNAVINST 1650.1D in December
1968, which specifically stated that the CDD was authorized to be
worn with the NAM only if the award was for service performed
after 17 July 1967. The Board can find no basis in law or equity

to create an exception to these requirements and grant
Petitioner’s request.

The Board likewise concludes that Subject was not entitled to
wear the Combat "V" on his NCM. SECNAVINST 1650.1D, the
directive in effect at the time, stated that the CDD could be
worn only if it was specifically authorized in the citation
accompanying the award, and the citation accompanying Subject’s
award did not authorize it. Further, in the recommendation for
the NCM submitted by the BROOKE’s CO, Subject was specifically
not recommended for the CDD. When COMSEVENTHFLT approved the
award, the Combat "V" was specifically not authorized.

It also seems clear that the failure to recommend or approve the
CDD for Subject’s NCM was not, as Petitioner contends, a mere
oversight. The governing directive authorized the CDD if the
individual was involved in direct participation in combat

11
operations, and was exposed to personal hazard due to hostile
action. Even if some of BROOKE’S actions in the PIRAZ could be
deemed “combat operations," Subject was not exposed to personal
hazard due to any hostile action. The Board also notes that
Change 6 to SECNAVINST 1650.1D would not have reached
COMSEVENTHFLT by the time Subject’s NCM was approved, and
therefore the CDD could also have been authorized based upon the
“imminence" of hostile action. However, the Board does not
believe that this helps Subject’s case, given the restrictive but
reasonable interpretation given to that term by COMSEVENTHFLT and
Commander, Naval Forces Vietnam. Accordingly, Subject was not
entitled to wear the Combat "V" on his NCM.

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds no error or injustice
warranting corrective action.

RECOMMENDATION :

That Petitioner’s request be denied.

4. It is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s
review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and

complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled
matter.

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN ALAN E. GOLDSMITH
Recorder Acting Recorder

5. In accordance with prior direction from your office, the
foregoing action of the Board is submitted for your review and
action.

W. DEAN PFEIFFER

Reviewed and approved:

12
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

1000 NAVY PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000

 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION

OF NAVAL RECORDS
Subj: PETITION ON BEHALF OF gga 21 JUN 1999
(DECEASED)

 

The petition in this case requests a formal determination

that =iieieQuiim USN (Deceased), was authorized to

wear the Combat Distinguishing Device (popularly known as the
“Combat V”) on a Navy Achievement Medal (NAM) awarded to him on

5 September 1968, and on a Navy Commendation Medal (NCM) awarded
on 20 September 1973.

This matter was considered by a three-member panel of the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR). On 18 December
1998, this BCNR panel recommended that the petition be denied.
The BCNR painstakingly pieced together and analy ze Ciiiamianne
naval record, Departmental instructions and policies, and
* contemporaneous interpretations of those directives. The Board’s

thorough and thoughtful work allows us to examine each of the
petitioner’s contentions with a clear understanding of the

regulatory requirements that existed at the time concerning the
award of the janie V.

With TeEpecE * to the Navy Achievement Medal, petitioner

contends that wie was authorized to wear the Combat V on
his Navy Achievement Medal because the medal was awarded for

direct participation’ in combat operations. According to
petitioner, instructions governing the Combat V at the time did
not require specific language authorizing the Combat V -- direct

participation in combat operations was sufficient.

Re Navy Achievement Medal was awarded for direct
participation in combat operations while serving on USS CRAIG
between 10 April and 10 August 1965. However, petitioner’ s
belief that this fact alone resolves the matter is not correct.
In 1965, the Navy Achievement Medal did not exist and ADM
Boorda'’s service on USS CRAIG was originally recognized by the
award of a Secretary of the Navy Commendation for Achievement, a
ribbon for which the Combat V was not authorized. When the
Secretary of the Navy Commendation for Achievement was
redesignated the Navy Achievement Medal, the governing
instruction, SECNAV Note 1650 of 17 July 1967, did not authorize
the Combat V for these retroactive awards of the Navy Achievement
Medal. In fact, a recommendation that would have authorized the
Combat V in these circumstances was considered and rejected by
the Navy Board for Decorations and Medals (NBDM) shortly after
SECNAV Note 1650 was issued. Consequently, even though @gp
ws service involved direct participation in combat
operations, the instructions and guidance then in effect did not
authorize wearing the Combat V on his Navy Achievement Medal.

  

In the case 0 RINNE 2.7 Commendation Medal,
petitioner acknowledges that the Combat V had to be specifically
authorized by the official approving the award. Petitioner

concedes that