2.  The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show his entitlement to award of the Silver Star (SS) and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal (RVNCM), which is a matter of record and will no longer be considered.

3.  On 17 June 1968, he was inducted into the Army of the United States.  He completed his required training and was awarded MOS 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  He was promoted to pay grade E-5, effective 20 February 1969.

4.  During the period 20 May-7 September 1969, he served in the RVN. 

5.  On 24 August 1969, he received a gun shot wound to the abdomen, as a result of hostile action.

6.  On 25 August 1969, General Order 226, 12th Evacuation Hospital, awarded the applicant the Purple Heart (PH).

7.  On 8 September 1969, he was evacuated to Japan where he remained until he was further evacuated to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, on 25 October 1969.

8.  On 1 June 1970, General Order 67, Fort Leonard Wood, awarded him the Good Conduct Medal, for service between     17 June 1968-16 June 1970.

9.  On 16 June 1970, he was honorably separated, in pay grade E-5, under AR 635-200, based on the expiration of his term of service.  His Report of Separation indicates that he had 2 years of creditable service.  He was entitled to award of the National Defense Service Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the RVNCM.

10.  AR 600-8-22, Military Awards, indicates, in pertinent part, that the SS is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the Unites States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.  The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.  Recommendations must have been entered into military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be honored, except for lost recommendations.  Lost recommendations are those entered into military channels within the required time frame and lost.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no indication that the applicant was ever recommended for or are there orders for an award for the act which he describes.

2.  The evidence of record does show his entitlement to award of the PH and the GCMDL, and should be included on his Report of Separation.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as shown below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing his entitlement to the PH and the GCMDL.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON