RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         02 DECEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004105982


      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. Raymond Wagner                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne Berry                 |     |Member               |

      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 the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant states he was wounded in Vietnam in 1968 and is currently
receiving compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for his
wounds. He states he would like the award because he believes that he
earned it.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 1995 Department of Veterans
Affairs rating document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 21 June 1968.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
10 March 2004.

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.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 23 June 1965.  He was trained as an infantryman.

4.  Following completion of training, he was assigned to an infantry unit
in Germany where he qualified as an expert with the M-14 rifle and was
awarded the associated badge and component bar.  The information, however,
was omitted from his separation document.

5.  In September 1967 the applicant was reassigned to the 3rd Battalion,
39th Infantry unit in Vietnam as an infantry team leader.  Although there
were no service medical records available to the Board, the applicant’s
Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) indicates
that he departed Vietnam in December 1967 in a patient status and was
assigned to the Medical Holding Company at Womack Army Hospital at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina.

6.  In February 1968 he assumed duties as a unit organization and supply
specialist with the medical company at For Bragg, North Carolina.
7.  On 21 June 1968 he was released from active duty with an honorable
characterization of service.  Neither his separation document, nor his
Department of the Army Form 20 reflect entitlement to the Purple Heart and
item 40 (wounds) on his Form 20 is blank.  The applicant last authenticated
the information on his Form 20 on 8 April 1968 and his separation document
on the date of his release from active duty.

8.  The Department of Veterans Affairs rating document indicates that the
applicant was granted a service-connected disability rating for multiple
shrapnel wounds.  The source of those shrapnel wounds is not identified on
the 1995 rating document.  That same rating document does note that the
applicant was attempting to secure a disability rating for hearing loss and
that he gave a “history of hearing loss of left ear subsequent to a grenade
explosion near his left side in service.”

9.  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.

10.  U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards)
provided, in pertinent part, for award of the Purple Heart.  The regulation
stated that authority to award the Purple Heart was delegated to hospital
commanders.  Further, it directed that all personnel treated and released
within 24 hours would be awarded the Purple Heart by the organization to
which the individual was assigned.  Personnel requiring hospitalization in
excess of 24 hours or evacuation from Vietnam would be awarded the Purple
Heart directly by the hospital commander rendering treatment.

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 one designated campaign (Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phase II) during the applicant’s period of assignment.
One bronze service star on the Vietnam Service Medal, which is recorded on
his separation document, should reflect his campaign participation.  The
unit was also awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation
with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class
Unit Citation during his tenure with the organization.  The unit awards
were also omitted from his separation document.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Unfortunately there is no medical evidence available which confirms
that the applicant was evacuated from Vietnam based on wounds sustained as
a result of hostile action.  Although he may be receiving disability
compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for “shrapnel wounds”
there is no indication that the shrapnel wounds resulted from hostile
action.  In the absence of such evidence it would be inappropriate to award
the applicant the Purple Heart at this time.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

4.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative
error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore,
administrative correction of the applicant's records will be accomplished
by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as
outlined by the Board in paragraph 3 of the BOARD
DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 21 June 1968; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
20 June 1971.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RW __  ___TO__  ___LB  __  DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.

3.  The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the
individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the
CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual
concerned to show:

      a.  qualification as an expert with the M-14 rifle and award of the
associated badge and component bar; and


      b.  entitlement to one bronze service star on his Vietnam Service
Medal, a Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and a
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.




                                  ___  Raymond Wagner_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105982                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041202                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]