PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 5 February 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001064741


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson
Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member
Mr. Roger W. Able		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

---

2. The applicant requests award of the Purple Heart.

3. The applicant states that he was told that he would be issued the Purple Heart, but it never was. In support of his application, he submitted a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision, dated 18 August 2001.

4. The American Legion, as counsel for the applicant, initially set forth his service, noting that he served in Vietnam for approximately a year as an infantryman and was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Army Commendation Medal. Counsel also noted that the DVA rating decision granted service connection for shrapnel wounds to his shoulder and that the wounds are consistent with his history of being wounded in Vietnam. Counsel invites the Board’s attention to the injustice raised by the applicant, and counsel opines that this submission in conjunction with the official Army records amply advance the applicant’s contentions and substantially reflect the probative facts needed for equitable review. Counsel concludes by resting on the evidence of record and noting his assurance that the final decision of the Board will reflect sound equitable principles consistent in law, regulation, policy and discretion.

5. The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted on 27 March 1968 and completed training as a light weapons infantryman. He served in Vietnam from 31 August 1968 to 25 August 1969. The applicant was honorably separated from active duty on 26 March 1970.

6. The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), which is signed in his own hand, does not show the Purple Heart as an authorized award in item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).

7. There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Purple Heart. There also is no evidence in his records that he was wounded or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show any entry in item 40 (Wounds) or list the Purple Heart in item 41 (Awards and Decorations).

8. The DVA rating decision submitted by the applicant addresses service connection for residuals of a shrapnel wound to the right shoulder. The rating decision states that the applicant’s service medical records were reviewed when his claim was considered and denied in 1989. The DVA rating decision stated:

         “Service medical records were entirely negative for any findings, diagnosis, or evidence of a shrapnel wound or similar injury. There were no complaints, findings, nor history of this injury on the veteran’s separation examination. The veteran’s military records do not show the award of a Purple Heart. When the veteran was afforded a VA examination in conjunction with his claim for service connection for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a medical examination was also conducted. The examiner found four small scars on the veteran’s right shoulder. The scars all measured approximately 1 cm.. The scars were not disfiguring, and were not tender on palpation. There was no muscle damage seen at the scar sites, and no limitation of motion or other functional impairment due to the scars. On x-ray of the veteran’s right shoulder there was a small increased density suggesting shrapnel. The veteran has provided a consistent history of his shoulder wound. The veteran has also provided a credible history of the circumstances of his wound, and an explanation for the absence of official records of his wound. Based on the VA examination there is now medical evidence of likely residuals of that wound. This evidence is considered new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the veteran’s claim. Given the approximate balance of evidence for and against the veteran’s claim, the benefit of the doubt is resolved in the veteran’s favor, and service connection for residuals of a shell fragment wound of the right shoulder is now established as directly related to military service.”

9. The Board noted that the applicant’s DD Form 214 does not show award of the Good Conduct Medal or any unit awards.

10. There is no indication in the applicant’s personnel records that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal. There also is no evidence the applicant was disqualified by his unit commander for award of the Good Conduct Medal. Records show the applicant’s conduct and efficiency was rated as “excellent” throughout his service and there is no indication of indiscipline in his records.

11. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam. This document shows that, at the time of the applicant’s assignment to the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry, the unit was cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation by Headquarters Department of the Army General Orders Number 52, dated 1971.

12. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam. This document shows that, at the time of the applicant’s assignment to the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry, that unit was cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class by Headquarters Department of the Army General Orders Number 53, dated 1970.

13. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

14. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service. Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. In regard to the request for award of the Purple Heart in this case, the Board carefully considered the DVA rating decision submitted by the applicant, the submission by the American Legion as counsel for the applicant, the applicant’s service personnel records, and the pertinent part of the Army regulation governing award of the Purple Heart.

2. The Board noted that there is no military medical record or other evidence in the applicant’s service personnel records which shows that the applicant was wounded as a result of hostile action or was treated for wounds or injuries sustained as a result of hostile action. These facts are also confirmed in the DVA rating decision.

3. The Board also noted the evidence of a “small increased density suggesting shrapnel” based on x-rays taken by the DVA. The Board also noted that the DVA awarded service connection for residuals of a shell fragment wound of the right shoulder based on the benefit of doubt resolved in the applicant’s favor.

4. Based on the foregoing, the Board determined that the available evidence is not sufficient to support award of the Purple Heart in this case. Specifically, there is no medical evidence or other evidence in the applicant’s service records which shows that he was wounded or treated for wounds resulting from hostile action as required for award of the Purple Heart. While the DVA may now award service connection for residuals of a shell fragment wound based on resolving doubt in favor of the applicant, such a determination is not a basis for award of the Purple Heart by this Board, particularly when records prepared at the time of his service in the Army indicate he was not awarded the Purple Heart and was not wounded.

5. The applicant is entitled to the first award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 27 March 1968 through 26 March 1970 based on completion of a period of qualifying service ending with the termination of a period of Federal military service. Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show this award.

6. Orders show the applicant was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation. Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show these foreign unit awards.

7. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was awarded the Good Conduct Medal for the period 27 March 1968 through 26 March 1970, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.

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

BOARD VOTE:

__RWA__ __JH___ __KAK___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ____Ms. June Hajjar____
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064741
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020205
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT )
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR SCHNEIDER
ISSUES 1.	107.0000.0000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.