RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         25 JANUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001059


      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:

|     |Ms. Kathleen Newman               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |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, in effect, that he sustained a foot injury when
he stepped on a punji stick in November 1966 when his unit was moving at
night to assist an artillery position that was being overrun.  He states he
never received the Purple Heart and has since been in contact with his
unit's former medical specialist.  He notes that the medical specialist
recalled the incident and blamed himself for not getting the paperwork
filed.

3.  The applicant provides a statement from the medical specialist

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 18 December 1968.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 11 May 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 3 January 1966.  While undergoing training he qualified as
an expert with the M-16 rifle and was awarded the associated badge and
component bar.  The badge was confirmed in orders issued by the 82nd
Airborne Division, but the information was omitted from his separation
document.

4.  In July 1966 the applicant was assigned to Vietnam as an infantryman
with the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry.  In June 1967 he assumed duties as
a light vehicle driver with the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne.  Prior to
departing Vietnam, in February 1968, he was awarded the Combat Infantryman
Badge, an Air Medal, an Army Commendation Medal, and a Bronze Star Medal.

5.  The statement submitted in support of his request from the individual
who identifies himself as the unit's medical specialist states that "there
were many injuries that early morning of November 7, 1966" and that he
recalls the applicant "having the incident where he was pierced by a Pungi
Stick on his left upper foot" but that he did not report it because of the
"time between [the applicant’s] incident and heading back for base
camp…wasn't for several weeks" and that he simply forgot.

6.  There is no indication that he was awarded the Purple Heart and item 40
(wounds) on his Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification
Record) is blank.  The applicant authenticated the accuracy of the
information on his DA Form 20 on 25 March 1968.  His name was not among of
list of individuals reported as combat casualties during the Vietnam War.

7.  The applicant's separation physical examination, completed on 13
November 1968, makes no mention of any combat incurred wounds or scars on
his foot.  An original Department of Veterans Affairs claim document dated
in 1969 notes the applicant was treated for malaria, but not for any combat
incurred wounds.  There were no service medical records, beyond his
separation physical examination, available to the Board.

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.  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.

10.  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 three designated campaigns (Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phase II and III, and TET Counteroffensive) during the
applicant’s period of assignment.  Three bronze service stars on the
Vietnam Service Medal, which is recorded on his separation document, should
reflect his campaign participation.  The unit was also awarded a
Meritorious Unit Commendation, two awards of the Republic of Vietnam
Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and a Republic of Vietnam Civil
Action Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, which were omitted from his
separation document.

11.  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.

12.  The applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his military
service were excellent, and he had no record of any disciplinary actions or
incidents of misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Unfortunately, there is no medical evidence available to the Board to
corroborate the medical specialist's statement.  In the absence of such
evidence, there is insufficient basis for an award of the Purple Heart.

2.  The evidence does, however, confirm that the applicant qualified as an
expert with the M-16 rifle and was awarded the associated badge and
component bar, that he is entitled to three bronze service stars on his
Vietnam Service Medal, a Meritorious Unit Commendations, two awards of the
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and a Republic
of Vietnam Civil Action Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  His records
should be corrected to reflect that information.

3.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal on 18 December 1968.  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 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 3 January 1966 through 18 December 1968.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___KN __  ___JA___  ___LD __  GRANT PARTIAL 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:

      a.  by showing that he qualified as an expert with the M-16 rifle and
was awarded the associated badge and component bar;


      b.  by showing that he is entitled to three bronze service stars on
his Vietnam Service Medal, a Meritorious Unit Commendations, two awards of
the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and a
Republic of Vietnam Civil Action Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation; and


      c.  by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period
3 January 1966 through 18 December 1968.

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 the Purple Heart.




                            __Kathleen Newman
                                 CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001059                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050125                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |PARTIAL GRANT                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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