PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 7 March 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001065210


         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. William Blakely		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		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, in effect, that he be awarded a second Purple Heart (PH).

3. The applicant states, in effect, that he also received a PH for being wounded in action in March 1969; however, he received an injury to his left ring finger during combat operations in July 1969, while he was assigned to the 11^th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Republic of Vietnam (RVN). He further states that his medical records will show that as a result of this second injury, he was evacuated to the rear for medical treatment and he is currently being compensated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for this injury to his left ring finger. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214) that he has altered to include the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) and the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), an ARCOM award certificate, and a claim letter, dated 3 May 1991, issued by the VA Regional Office, Muskogee, Oklahoma.

4. The applicant’s military records show that on 15 September 1967, he entered the Army for 3 years. He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11E (Armor Crewman) and he continuously served on active duty for 2 years, 9 months, and 1 day, until being honorably separated on 15 June 1970.

5. The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist five/E-5
(SP5). It also confirms that he served in the RVN from 7 August 1968 to
6 August 1969, and that during his assignment tenure he participated in
3 campaigns. Block 41 (Awards and Decorations) shows that during his tenure on active duty he earned the following awards: PH; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; and RVN Campaign Medal with 60 Device.

6. The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any official orders or other documents that would suggest he was ever recommended for or awarded a 1^st Oak Leaf Cluster or second award of the PH. The MPRJ is also void of derogatory information and it contains no documents that indicate he was ever disqualified from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) by any of the unit commanders that he served for during his tenure on active duty.

7. General Orders 1901, dated 4 August 1969, issued by Headquarters, II Field Force, RVN, awarded the applicant the ARCOM for meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile force for the period August 1968 through July 1969.

8. The available military medical records contain no information or verification that the applicant was ever treated by military medical personnel for the injury he received in action to his left finger while serving in the RVN.
9. In addition, the VA claim award letter, dated 3 May 1991, issued by the VA Regional Office, Muskogee, Oklahoma, granted the applicant a service connected disability rating for a laceration scar to his left ring finger. However, the claim letter contains no confirmation that this injury to his left finger was received in action.

10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes the policy for the Army awards program. Paragraph 2-8 contains the policy for awarding the PH and it states, in pertinent part, that the PH 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. Paragraph 2-8b(1) states, in pertinent part, that the PH is authorized for the first wound suffered, but for each subsequent award an oak leaf cluster will be awarded.

11. Paragraph 2-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on awarding the Vietnam Service Medal and states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign participated in while serving in the RVN. Chapter 4 provides guidance on awarding the AGCM and it states, in pertinent part, that it is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service. The normal qualifying period is 3 years; however, in the case of the first award, the qualifying period is 1 or more years when it is awarded at the termination of a period of Federal military service. There is no automatic entitlement to the AGCM; however, disqualification must be justified.

12. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in the RVN. This document confirms that the applicant’s unit received the Valorous Unit Award for action on 18 Jun 69, as authorized in Department of the Army General Order (DAGO) 53, issued in 1970 and the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation during is assignment tenure in the RVN.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be awarded a second PH for an injury he received in action in July 1969. However, notwithstanding the disability rating action taken by the VA, which does not clearly establish that he was injured or wounded in action, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support his claim of entitlement to this award.

---

2. Lacking any derogatory information on file and/or a specific disqualifying action from any of his unit commanders that would preclude him from receiving the AGCM, the Board concludes that the applicant served a qualifying period of service that entitles him to receive the first award of the AGCM, and it finds it would be appropriate to add this award to his record at this time.

3. Further, the applicant’s record confirms that during his assignment tenure in the RVN, he participated in 3 campaigns and he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal. In addition, his unit received the Valorous Unit Award and the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation. Therefore, the Board concludes that it would also be appropriate to add these awards to his record at this time.

4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the Army Good Conduct Medal for his honorable service from 15 September 1967 to 15 June 1970; by showing he received the Army Commendation Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars, Valorous Unit Award, and Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects these changes.

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

BOARD VOTE:

__RVO__ _ _JPI__ __RKS GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  __Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.__
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065210
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2002/03/07
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	107.0015
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.