RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            22 JUNE 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003097162


      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. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose Martinez                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |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 reconsideration of his previous request for
award of the Combat Medical Badge.

2.  The applicant states he is a 55 year old Vietnam veteran who has
undergone numerous medical operations and has been hospitalized numerous
times due to combat wounds inflicted in Vietnam.  He states that he has
been told that because of the stress to his mind and body his life
expectancy has decreased by 10 years.

3.  He states, in effect, that after spending thousands of hours and
dollars his request for award of the Combat Medical Badge has consistently
met with objections.  He states that each time he has been denied he has
submitted new evidence, only to “be shot down again.”  He states he has
spent many sleepless nights wondering about the technicalities involved in
receiving the badge, when he knows he did the best job he could and truly
believes he is deserving of the badge.

4.  The applicant provides a new letter, dated 22 August 2003, from the
former commander of Advisory Team 52.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant’s petition for award
of the Combat Medical Badge.

2.  Counsel states the new letter confirms that the applicant was
supporting infantry troops and was assigned to the MAC-V (Military
Assistance Command-Vietnam) Team, was in weekly contact with enemy forces,
and that failure of the applicant’s commander to recommend the applicant
for award of the Combat Medal Badge was an oversight because of the TET
Offensive.

3.  Counsel maintains that previous denials keyed in on the TET Offensive,
but skipped over the fact that the MAC-V Team was without a United States
Army Medic, and that the applicant went “on more missions than the one he
was wounded on.”  He states award of the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device
is not the same as being awarded the Combat Medical Badge.  He states that
if waivers can be made for award criteria for the Combat Infantryman Badge
it should also stand to reason that waivers could be made for the Combat
Medical Badge.

4.  Counsel states that it appears that no one wants to help veterans get
what they deserve, they “just find reasons why it can’t be done.”  He
states that award of the Badge will “help a troubled veteran get on with
his life.”
5.  Counsel provides a copy of the previous application and enclosure
originally considered by the Board in April 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2002080279, on 17 April 2003.

2.  The new statement from the former commander of the Advisory Team 52,
dated 22 August 2003, constitutes new evidence which requires review by the
Board.

3.  An original statement from the former commander of the Advisory Team
52, dated 4 February 1969, was considered by the Board during its original
deliberation in April 2003.  In that statement, the author noted that the
applicant served “on my Advisory Detachment as District Medical Advisor”
between
5 January and 15 February 1968.  He noted that during this “short period”
the applicant volunteered to accompany all military operations during the
TET Offensive of 1968.  During a road clearing operation on 15 February
1968 “our forces came under enemy fire….”  He stated that the applicant and
another officer were wounded and that the other officer recommended that
the applicant be awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device as a result
of his heroic actions during the incident.  The former commander indicated
that the recommendation for award of the Bronze Star Medal was submitted in
March 1968.  He concluded that he had the highest regard for the
applicant’s display of courage during this brief period and he “certainly
deserves recognition for his outstanding service.”  The statement was
apparently submitted in support of the recommendation for award of the
Bronze Star Medal.

4.  In his recent statement, the former commander expands considerably on
the duties of his organization and states that “we conducted Battalion
sized combat infantry operations on a weekly basis and were subject to
hostile enemy fire on all operations.”  He states that the applicant
“provided medical aid to American Advisory Team members and Vietnamese
soldiers while under hostile fire.”  He stated that of the five members of
the American Advisory Team, one was killed in action, one received the
Silver Star, and three were awarded the Purple Heart.  The individual who
received the Silver Star was the same individual who recommended the
applicant for award of the Bronze Star Medal in March 1968.

5.  The former commander states that after the applicant was medically
evacuated he “had no thought of awards or decorations” and that he did not
submit any recommendations to the best of [his] recollection….”  He
maintains that if anyone deserves the Combat Medical Badge for actions
performed under combat infantry conditions, it is the applicant who
exceeded the role of medical advisor on a daily basis.

6.  Another, undated statement, which was previously seen by the Board,
supported a recommendation for a “meritorious Bronze Star.”  In that
statement, the author, who identifies himself as a former United States Air
Force captain assigned to the 558th Medical Service Flight in Vietnam,
noted that the applicant was “assigned as District Medical Advisor to MAC-V
team #52” and “in this capacity…took care of Vietnamese civilians,
Vietnamese rural and Popular Force soldiers and medically advised his
American team MAC-V #52.”  It noted that the applicant “voluntarily
accompanied all combat operations during the TET Offensive of 1968 and was
wounded while on a road clearing mission on February 15, 1968.”  In a
statement dated 23 March 1987, the author of the previously mentioned
statement identified himself as one of three doctors in the 558th Medical
Service Flight.  In that statement the author indicated that the applicant
was “assigned to one of the district teams within the province…after he had
spent about six months at the Provincial Capitol.”  He noted that “from his
district location he [the applicant] was wounded by hostile fire while
accompanying other American advisory personnel.”

7.  In the Board’s original consideration of the applicant’s request it
cited a
14 February 2000 statement from another Soldier who was a member of
Advisory Team #52.  That statement outlined the primary responsibilities of
the team, which was “to assist the Vietnamese forces so that they might be
able to conduct the war themselves someday, to assist villagers with
medical assistance, and routinely collect intelligence information which
was passed on to various Navy Seal groups in the area.”  That statement
concluded that the applicant was deserving of the Combat Medical Badge
because the detachment had been engaged in actual ground combat and were
“operating in an infantry style search and destroy of roadblocks.”

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the “sole criteria which qualifies
medical personnel for award of the CMB [Combat Medical Badge] is to be
assigned or attached to an infantry unit [emphasis added] engaged in active
ground combat. Medical personnel other than those medics organic to
infantry units may qualify only if they serve as medical personnel
accompanying infantrymen.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s current medical
circumstance and the stress and horrors he was exposed to during the
Vietnam War, an award of the Combat Medical Badge was never intended as a
“reward” for medical personnel who may have been exposed to combat
conditions or were wounded in action.

2.  As noted in the Board’s original consideration of the applicant’s
request, while he may have been attached to the advisory team, the team’s
primary mission was assistance and while they may have engaged in “infantry
type” missions, that does not meet the qualification requirement for award
of the Combat Medical Badge.  The Combat Medical Badge, like the Combat
Infantryman Badge, stemmed from a requirement to recognize medical aidmen
who shared the same hazards and hardships of ground combat on a daily basis
with the infantry Soldier.  While the applicant may have been involved in
ground combat, it would have been no different than a medical corpsman who
may have been with a military police unit who was exposed to ground combat
during a particularly intense period of fighting and who would also then
have been engaged in “infantry type” missions.

3.  Also, as noted in the Board’s previous consideration of the case, there
was no indication that the applicant had ever been recommended for award of
the Combat Medical Badge, another requirement for the award.  The previous
evidence notes that the applicant was recommended for the Bronze Star Medal
with “V” device within a month after the actions during which he was
wounded. The former commander who submits the August 2003 statement noted
that the officer who recommended the applicant for the Bronze Star Medal
was awarded the Silver Star, presumably as a result of that same action,
and yet there is no compelling argument which explains why there was never
a recommendation for the Combat Medical Badge.  The absence of such an
explanation, in view of the fact that other award recommendations were
being made during the period in question, even though they may not have
been made by the team commander, further supports the Board’s previous
conclusion that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for
the badge.

4.  While the recent attempts to secure the Combat Medical Badge for the
applicant in light of the circumstance under which he served and was
wounded are certainly noble, regrettably, they do not constitute a basis
which would justify awarding the applicant the badge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JS___  __JM ___  ___LF___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002080270, dated 17 April 2003.





            ______John Slone_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003097162                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040622                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |