RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           18 MARCH 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003093753


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Roger W. Able                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn II           |     |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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of two Purple Hearts.  He also requests an
award for heroism.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he sustained a shrapnel wound to
his back on 21 June 1968 while on bunker guard duty.  He states that he was
outside the bunker when “suddenly shots were fired in the dark, followed by
a large explosion.”  He notes he fell to the ground “yelling in pain, as
hot metal burned inside my lower right back.”  He states that he was taken
to the aid station where local anesthetic was applied and surgery
performed.  After surgery, he states that the “incision was not sutured
immediately” and he was told to report back to the aid station the
following morning.  He states that it was not until seven days later that
the incision was actually sutured.  The applicant notes that both his
sergeant and lieutenant were killed in action which is the reason his name
was never submitted for any type of award.

3.  The applicant states that he was wounded a second time during a night
ambush patrol when he encountered rapid enemy gunfire and “leaped onto the
ground” where his left hand sank into a black hole.  He states that he felt
“a sharp pain in [his] left palm” and explored the hole with his bleeding
hand.  He states he could feel several spikes and “only then [he] was
certain that the hole was [a] punji-pit.”

4.  The applicant also outlines the action for which he believed he should
have received an award for heroism.

5.  The applicant provides his self-authored statement and copies of two
letters, written in 1968, which he sent to his girlfriend from Vietnam.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on
25 August 1969.  The application submitted in this case is dated 18 June
2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant requested correction of his records to show an award for
heroism.  There are no orders or other evidence authorizing award of such a
decoration.  In the absence of a proper award authority for such a
decoration, the applicant may request the award under the provisions of
Section 1130 of Title 10, United States Code.  The applicant has been
notified by separate correspondence of the procedures for applying for an
award for heroism under Section 1130 and, as a result, it will not be
discussed further in the Record of Proceedings.

4.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was inducted
and entered active duty on 16 October 1967.  While undergoing training he
qualified as a marksman with the M-16 automatic rifle and was awarded the
associated badge and component bar.  The badge was omitted from his
separation document.

5.  In March 1968 he completed training as an infantryman and was awarded
an infantry specialty (11B) and assigned to Vietnam.  While in Vietnam he
was assigned to the 2nd Battalion of the 60th Infantry.

6.  The letters submitted in support of his request for award of the Purple
Heart were written on 23 June and 21 August 1968.  The 23 June letter notes
that he “was wounded the 21 [sic] of this month by a mine” but that he was
fine except for “two small holes in my lower right back.”  He wrote that it
only took the doctor “15 minutes to extract the fragments.”  In the 21
August 1968 letter he recounts how he fell in a mud hole while on the way
to the NCO (noncommissioned officer) club.

7.  There were no service medical records available to the Board, or
provided by the applicant.  His name was not among a list of individuals
reported as combat casualties during the Vietnam War.  His separation
physical examination, completed in April 1969, notes a 9 inch long,
nonsensitive scar “level of 12th rib,” which the applicant attributed to a
“shrapnel wound.”  The examination does not, however, indicate the wound
resulted from hostile action.  Item 40 (wounds) on the applicant’s
Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) is blank.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple
Heart is awarded for wounds 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 by a
medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of
official record.

9.  The applicant departed Vietnam in March 1969 and completed his service
at Fort Carson, Colorado.  In July 1969 he qualified as a sharpshooter with
the
M-14 rifle and was awarded the associated badge and component bar.  That
information was also omitted from the applicant’s separation document.

10.  On 25 August 1969 the applicant was released from active duty with an
honorable characterization of service.

11.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and
Campaign Participation Credit Register) notes the applicant’s unit was
credited with participating in five designated campaigns (TET
Counteroffensive, Vietnam Counteroffensive Phases IV, V, and VI, and TET 69
Counteroffensive) during the applicant’s period of assignment.  A silver
service star on the Vietnam Service Medal should reflect his campaign
participation.  His separation document incorrectly reflects entitlement to
only three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal.  During his
tenure with the organization the unit was also awarded a Presidential Unit
Citation, two awards of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit
Citation with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal
First Class Unit Citation, which is incorrectly reflected as a Vietnam Unit
Citation on his separation document.

12.  Subsequent to the applicant’s separation, in June 1999, his separation
document was amended to include entitlement to the Combat Infantryman
Badge.  This action was accomplished by the Army’s Office of The Adjutant
General.

13.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time when the service member
was discharged, required that throughout a qualifying period of service for
award of the Good Conduct Medal the enlisted person must have had all
“excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-
martial.  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.  With the publication of the new Army Regulation 672-5-1, in 1974,
the requirement for all excellent conduct and efficiency ratings was
dropped and an individual was required to show that he/she willingly
complied with the demands of the military environment, had been loyal and
obedient, and faithfully supported the goals of his organization and the
Army.  Today, Army Regulation 600-8-22, which replaced Army Regulation 672-
5-1, notes that there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct
Medal and disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires
that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and
permits the individual to respond.  The applicant’s conduct and efficiency
ratings throughout his military service were excellent and his records
contain no evidence of any disciplinary actions or incidents of misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Unfortunately, there is no evidence which confirms that the applicant
was wounded as a result of hostile action on two separate occasions while
in Vietnam.  The entry on a separation physical examination, completed
almost a year after the incident was to have occurred, and the applicant’s
self-authored letter is not sufficiently compelling evidence to conclude
that the applicant was wounded as a result of hostile action.  Information
contained in the August 1968 letter is not consistent with the information
provided by the applicant regarding his second injury.  In the absence of
more compelling medical evidence, there is no basis for an award of the
Purple Heart at this time.

2.  The evidence does, however, show that the applicant qualified as a
marksman with the M-16 automatic rifle and as a sharpshooter with the M-14
rifle and that he was awarded the associated badges and component bars.
His records should be corrected accordingly.

3.  The evidence also shows that the applicant is entitled to a silver
service star on his Vietnam Service Medal, vice the three bronze service
stars currently reflected, a Presidential Unit Citation, two awards of the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and a Republic
of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, vice the
“Vietnam Unit Citation” currently recorded on his separation document.

4.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal on 25 August 1969.  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 16 October 1967 through
25 August 1969.

BOARD VOTE:

__RWA__  __LDS__  __RJO __  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

      a.  awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 16 October
1967 through 25 August 1969;
      b.  showing that he qualified as a marksman with the M-16 automatic
rifle and as a sharpshooter with the M-14 rifle and that he was awarded the
associated badges and component bars; and


      c.  showing that he is entitled to a silver service star on his
Vietnam Service Medal, vice the three bronze service stars currently
reflected, a Presidential Unit Citation, two awards of the Republic of
Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and a Republic of Vietnam
Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, vice the “Vietnam Unit
Citation.”

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
award of two Purple Hearts.




            ____ Roger W. Able______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003093753                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040318                                |
|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.                      |                                        |