PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 6 February 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002078323


         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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson
Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member
Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		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 reconsideration of his previous application to correct his military records by awarding him the Purple Heart.

3. The applicant states, in effect, that he is not asking to be given a Purple Heart, but simply to be awarded the Purple Heart that he earned in Vietnam when he was wounded on 1 May 1968. In support of his application he submits statements from the company executive officer (a Retired colonel) and two former members of his unit who were present when he was wounded and a copy of the orders awarding him the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

4. The Memorandum of Consideration (MOC) of the Board’s 4 June 2002 review of the case (AR2002067080) is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.

5. The applicant’s submission is new evidence and/or argument that requires Board consideration.

6. Two of the supporting statements submitted by the applicant consists of the same two statements from former members of his unit in Vietnam submitted with his original application. Both of those individuals were awarded the CIB on the same order as the applicant.

7. The third statement is new evidence from the former executive officer who is now a Retired colonel. He states that he kept notes of the incident in question and subsequently wrote a book on his tour of duty in Vietnam and the incident in which the applicant was wounded. He further states that on the night of 30 April and morning of 1 May 1968, the headquarters troop came under attack from a North Vietnamese Sapper Battalion. At the time of the attack, the applicant was assigned to an armored personnel carrier that was attacked and all four members (including the applicant) were wounded. Three of the four members were evacuated for further medical treatment and the applicant was treated locally and returned to duty. He further states that a total of 11 men were killed and 47 were wounded and in all probability, the confusion that existed was the cause of his treatment not being recorded or his being awarded the Purple Heart; however, he can attest that the applicant was wounded and is sure that others were awarded the Purple Heart for that same engagement. He also submits pages from the book he wrote.

8. On 23 May 1968, the applicant, along with 36 other soldiers, were awarded their first award of the CIB. A comparison of the names of members on the CIB orders reveals that most of the members of the applicant’s unit that were awarded the CIB with the applicant, were listed as casualties on the Vietnam Casualty Listing for 1 May 1968. However, the applicant’s name is not listed. The applicant was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3^rd Squadron, 5^th Cavalry Regiment, 9^th Infantry Division during the period of 13 February 1968 to 12 February 1969. He was also advanced to the pay grade of E-4 (SP4) on 1 May 1968 (the day he claims he was wounded) and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 (SP5) on 1 November 1968.

9. He completed his tour in Vietnam and was transferred to Fort Meade, Maryland, where he remained until he was honorably released from active duty on 15 August 1969, due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS). He had served 1 year, 11 months and 28 days of total active service and was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, the CIB, the Vietnam Presidential Unit Citation and a marksmanship qualification badge. His records also show that he had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings and there is no derogatory information contained in his records.

10. 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 a result of hostile action, that the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, and that the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.

11. Army Regulation 600-8-22 also prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM). It states, in pertinent part, that the AGCM was established by Executive Order 8809, 28 June 1941 and was amended by Executive Order 9323, 1943 and by Executive Order 10444, 10 April 1953 and is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service. The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that for first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of service of less than 3 years but more than 1 year qualifies for award of the AGCM.

12. Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register-Vietnam Era) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict. Table 1 (Army Units in Numerical Order) of the pamphlet indicates that the applicant’s unit was also authorized awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm (RVNGC w/Palm) Unit Citation, the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal – First Class (RVNCAHM-FC) Unit Citation and the Valorous Unit Award (VUA) during the period he was assigned to the unit. It also shows that his unit participated in four campaigns during his tour in Vietnam, which constitutes authority to award the applicant four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM.




CONCLUSIONS:

1. The evidence of record fails to show that the applicant was wounded/injured as a result of enemy action. However, the applicant has provided three eyewitness statements which, when viewed together, are sufficiently convincing enough, when compared to the evidence of record, to convince the Board that the applicant was in fact wounded on 1 May 1968, treated by medical personnel and returned to duty.

2. Accordingly, the Board must presume that given the circumstances surrounding the attack, the large number of soldiers killed and wounded and the confusion that followed thereafter, that because the applicant was returned to duty after medical treatment, an administrative error resulted in his treatment not being recorded and his Purple Heart not being awarded.

3. Therefore, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of equity and justice to resolve any doubt in favor of the applicant by awarding him the Purple Heart for wounds received in action in Vietnam on 1 May 1968.

4. Additionally, the evidence of record also shows that he should have been awarded the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, the RVNCAHM-FC Unit Citation, the VUA and four bronze service stars (campaign participation) for wear on his already awarded VSM. Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to do so at this time.

5. The Board also notes that the applicant had no lost time and that he did not receive an AGCM at the time he was separated from the service. Consequently, the Board finds that it was likely the result of an administrative error, as opposed to it being the result of a conscious disqualification by any of the unit commanders for which he served. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board determined that this error should be corrected and the applicant should receive the AGCM at this time.

6. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would correct an error or rectify an injustice.

RECOMMENDATION: That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the Purple Heart for wounds received in Vietnam on 1 May 1968, while serving in the rank of SP4, the RVNGC w/Palm Unit Citation, the RVNCAHM-FC Unit Citation, the VUA, the AGCM for the period of 18 August 1967 through 15 August 1969, and four bronze service stars for wear on his already awarded VSM.

BOARD VOTE:

__fe ____ ____ecp_ __ja ____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  _____Fred N. Eichorn______
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078323
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/06
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PLUS
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 61	107.0015/PH
2. 102	107.0056/AGCM
3. 79	107.0033/VUA
4. 140	107.0094/VNGC
5. 141	107.0095/VNCA
6.