PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 10 DECEMBER 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002077957


         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. Celia L. Adolphi		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson
Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member
Mr. Conrad V. Meyer		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 that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Bronze Star Medal for heroism. He states, in effect, that his award certificate indicates his Bronze Star Medal was awarded for "ground combat" but his separation document merely indicates award of the Bronze Star Medal with no indication that the award was for heroism. In support of his request he submits a copy of his Bronze Star Medal certificate.

3. Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on
8 March 1971. While under going training he qualified as an expert with the grenade and as a sharpshooter with the machinegun. He was awarded the appropriate qualification badges and associated component bars. However, both badges were omitted from his separation document.

4. In August 1971 the applicant was assigned to Vietnam as an infantryman. He was initially assigned to the 1^st Battalion, 52^nd Infantry and subsequently, in October 1971, he was assigned to the 2^nd Battalion, 1^st Infantry, 196^th Infantry Brigade.

5. In March 1972 the applicant was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge. That badge was also omitted from his separation document.

6. In March 1972 the applicant was also awarded the Bronze Star Medal for "meritorious service in connection with military operations against a hostile force." The award recognized his meritorious service between August 1971 and March 1972. Orders published by the 196^th Infantry Brigade confirmed the award. The applicant was, however, issued a Bronze Star Medal certificate for "heroism in ground combat." The dates of the award (August 1971-March 1972), on the award certificate, are consistent with his award orders. The certificate does not cite a single date or specific act of heroism.

7. The applicant returned to the United States in June 1972. The applicant participated in two campaigns (Consolidation I and II) during his tour in Vietnam, which should be represented by bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal. The 52^nd Infantry and 1^st Infantry were awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm for actions while the applicant was assigned to those organizations. That information was omitted from is separation document.

8. On 7 March 1973 he was released from active duty, in pay grade E-4, with an honorable characterization of service. His separation document reflects entitlement to the Bronze Star Medal.

9. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Bronze Star Medal was established in 1944 and may be awarded for meritorious service, meritorious achievement, or for acts of heroism. Awards for meritorious service generally recognizes an individual for a succession of outstanding acts of achievement over a sustained period of time, while an award for heroism, denoted by a "V" device, recognizes an act or acts of an individual engaged in actual conflict with an armed in which the soldier exhibited extreme courage in attaining a noble end. The Bronze Star Medal certificate is issued in various versions; including one for heroism and one for meritorious service/achievement.

10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides that the Army 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 Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified. Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond. There is no evidence in the applicant's official military personnel file that his commander ever disqualified him for award of the Good Conduct Medal and no evidence of any misconduct or disciplinary actions. His conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his military service were excellent.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. Orders announcing award of the Bronze Star Medal to the applicant confirm that the award was meritorious service between August 1971 and March 1972. Although the applicant may have received an award certificate indicating the award was for heroism, the evidence available to the Board indicates that an incorrect award certificate was utilized. The existing award certificate notes the extended period of service recognized by the award which is inconsistent with an award for heroism which would have recognized a specific act or acts on a single day or several days at the most. The Board concludes that the applicant's award of the Bronze Star Medal was for service and not heroism and as such, the entry on his separation document is correct.

2. The Board does note, however, that the applicant was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, and that he qualified as a expert with the grenade and as a sharpshooter with the machinegun and was awarded the associated badges and component bars. His entitlement to those badges should be annotated on his separation document.

3. Additionally, the applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 7 March 1973. There is no evidence his commander ever disqualified him from receiving the award and no evidence of any misconduct which would justify denying him the award. In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the applicant met the basic qualifications for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and it would be appropriate and in the interest of equity to award him that decoration for the period 8 March 1971 through 7 March 1973.

4. The evidence confirms that the applicant is entitled to two bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal and two awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm. His records should be corrected accordingly.

5. 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:

a. by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge;

b. by showing that he qualified as an expert with the grenade and as a sharpshooter with the machinegun and was awarded the appropriate badges and component bars;

c. by showing that he is entitled to two bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal and two awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm; and

d. by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 8 March 1971 through 7 March 1973.

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

BOARD VOTE:

__CLA __ __TSK __ __CVM__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION


                  ____Celia L. Adolphi_______
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077957
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20021210
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.	107.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.