PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 10 September 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002073783


         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
Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member
Mr. William D. Barr		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 for an injury received during a “friendly fire” incident in Vietnam.

3. The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of his injury, “friendly fire” incidents did not qualify for award of the Purple Heart. He contends that the incident occurred during an Inspector General (IG) inspection and that he sustained multiple fragment wounds. He states that his outpatient treatment at “Bravo Med” did not appear in his medical files and that his injuries were witnessed by several officers and enlisted personnel. However, he can no longer recall their names. He also states that his medical treatment should be recorded in the treatment logs of “Bravo Med.” He goes on to state that as a medic, he did not feel the nature of his injuries required pursuit of this award until he was required to rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs for primary health care.

4. The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted on 13 March 1968. He served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam from 7 September 1968 through
29 August 1969 and was honorably released on 15 January 1970.

5. The applicant’s DD Form 214, which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Purple Heart as an authorized award.

6. There is no evidence in the available records that shows the applicant was wounded as a result of “friendly fire” while directly engaged in armed conflict.

7. Item 40 (Wounds) on the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) is blank. The applicant’s name does not appear on the Vietnam Casualty Roster.

8. Evidence of record does show that on 18 December 1969 the applicant underwent a separation physical examination. This medical record shows that the applicant reported that he sustained minor fragment wounds in August 1969 in Vietnam.

9. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the Vietnam Service Medal as an authorized award. His records show that he participated in four campaigns during his assignment in Vietnam.

10. There is no evidence the applicant received the first award of the Good Conduct Medal. There also is no evidence the applicant was disqualified by his chain of command from receiving the Good Conduct Medal. His records do not contain any adverse information and he received conduct and efficiency ratings of “excellent” throughout his service.



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 the unit, to which the applicant was assigned, was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation for actions during the period 1 January to 31 December 1968 by Department of the Army General Orders Number 7, dated 1970. This award is not shown on his discharge document.

12. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 also shows that the applicant’s unit was cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation by Department of the Army General Orders Number 53, dated 1970. This award is not shown on his discharge document.

13. Included as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1994 was an amendment to the rules governing award of the Purple Heart. While the original rules established that the Purple Heart would be awarded to individuals killed or wounded as a result of hostile action the amendment enabled the Secretaries of each department to award the Purple Heart to members of the armed forces who were killed or wounded in action by weapon fire, while directly engaged in armed conflict, other than as the result of an act of an enemy of the United States. This ruling, in effect, granted the service Secretaries the authority to award the Purple Heart to individuals directly engaged in armed conflict who were killed or wounded as a result of "friendly fire."

14. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Purple Heart to individuals wounded or killed as a result of “friendly fire” in the “heat of battle” as long as the “friendly” projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment.

15. Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, authorizes award of a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation and states that authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate service medal.

16. 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. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he sustained multiple fragment wounds as a result of “friendly fire” during an IG inspection in August 1969 in Vietnam.

2. The Board also considered the entry provided by the applicant on his separation physical examination which shows he sustained minor fragment wounds in August 1969 in Vietnam. However, by the applicant’s own admission, these injuries occurred during an IG inspection in Vietnam, not while directly engaged in armed conflict. Therefore, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence on which to base award of the Purple Heart in this case.

3. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the Vietnam Service Medal as an authorized award. However, evidence of record shows the applicant participated in four campaigns during his assignment in Vietnam which are not correctly shown by award of four bronze service stars for wear on his Vietnam Service Medal. Therefore, in accordance with the governing regulation, the applicant is entitled to the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars and correction of his DD Form 214 to show these awards.

4. The applicant is entitled to the first award of the Good Conduct Medal based on completion of qualifying service from 13 March 1968 to 15 January 1970 ending with termination of a period of Federal military service. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award.

5. The applicant’s unit received the Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation while he was assigned to it. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show these awards.

6. 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 that the individual concerned was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars, the first award of the Good Conduct Medal, the Meritorious Unit Commendation 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:

FNE____ BJE____ WDB_____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ___Fred N. Eichorn________
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073783
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020910
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	107.0015
2.	107.0000
3.
4.
5.
6.