RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         24 FEBRUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002229


      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. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Weaver                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jonathon Rost                 |     |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 on the night of 15 April 1969 his
unit was attacked near a base known as “Diamond.”  He states that he was
hit by shrapnel in his right arm and right upper thigh.  He states that the
“medic within our company…administered various medication and bandages” and
a captain and doctor left after the incident without submitting the proper
papers for his award.  He states that until recently, when filing for “post
traumatic syndrome” with the Department of Veterans Affairs, he kept all of
his thoughts about Vietnam hidden.

3.  The applicant provides a statement from another Soldier who states he
was with the applicant at “Diamond” and that the applicant was “hit in the
right hand and upper thigh.”  He also submits a copy of a casualty report
for a fellow Soldier who was killed during the attack, and extracts from
publications, which detail the events at “Diamond” in April 1969.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 9 April 1970.  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 limitations 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 was inducted
and entered active duty on 28 August 1968.  While undergoing training he
qualified as an expert with the M-16 automatic rifle and as a sharpshooter
with the M-14 rifle.  He was awarded the associated badges and component
bar although the information was omitted from his separation document.
Orders issued at Fort Campbell, Kentucky confirmed the badges.

4.  In January 1969, following completion of training as a field
artilleryman, the applicant was assigned to Vietnam.  He was initially
assigned as a cannoneer with the 8th Artillery, 25th Infantry, but assumed
duties as a maintenance data specialist in August 1969.

5.  There were no service medical records available to the Board, or
provided by the applicant.  Item 40 (wounds) on his Department of the Army
Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) is blank, and the applicant’s name
is not among a list of individuals who were reported as combat casualties
during the Vietnam War.

6.  The documents provided by the applicant in support of his request
recount the activities at Patrol Base Diamond between February and April
1969.  The accounts, however, do not identify the applicant as having been
wounded.  The statement submitted in support of the applicant’s request,
from another Soldier who indicated that he was with the applicant at Patrol
Base Diamond and notes that the applicant “was hit,” was authored in March
2004.

7.  The applicant departed Vietnam in April 1970, having been awarded an
Army Commendation Medal in November 1969.

8.  On 9 April 1970 the applicant was released from active duty, in pay
grade E-4, with an honorable characterization of service.  His separation
document does not reflect entitlement to the Purple Heart.

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.  United States Army Vietnam 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 three designated campaigns (Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phase VI, TET 69 Counteroffensive, and Vietnam Summer-Fall
1969) 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 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.

12.  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.

13.  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 which confirms that the
applicant was wounded as a result of hostile action during the Vietnam War.
 In the absence of medical evidence, the statement from another individual,
rendered years after the fact, is insufficient as a basis to award the
Purple Heart.  Additionally, while the narrative of events, which occurred
at Patrol Base Diamond, do recount actions with enemy forces; none of those
documents identify the applicant as having been wounded.

2.  The evidence does, however, confirm that the applicant completed a
qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on
9 April 1970.  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.  His award of the Army Commendation Medal
for his service in Vietnam further confirms his honorable service.  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 28 August 1968 through 9 April 1970.

3.  The evidence also shows that the applicant qualified as an expert 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.

4.  The applicant is also entitled to three bronze service stars on his
Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit
Citation with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal
First Class Unit Citation.

BOARD VOTE:

___      __  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__YM ___  ___RW__  ___JR __  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 awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period
28 August 1968 through 9 April 1970;

      b.  by showing that he qualified as an expert 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.  by showing that he is entitled to three bronze service stars on
his Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit
Citation with Palm and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal
First Class 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 the Purple Heart.




                            ___ Yolanda Maldonado______
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040002229                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050224                                |
|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]