RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           10 May 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005499


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Antonio Uribe                 |     |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, in effect, award of the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that on 29 March 1969, while serving
in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), he was hit with a piece of shrapnel.  He
states that he never told anyone of his wound because he felt there were
more seriously wounded Soldiers to deal with that day.  He further states
that he has subsequently been diagnosed with a Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) and was ashamed to be a veteran at the time of his
discharge.  However, since he has received treatment for his PTSD, he is
now able to request his PH.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his claim.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 7 November 1969.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
2 August 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.  The applicant’s record shows that he was inducted into the Army and
entered active duty on 8 November 1967.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 13E (Operations and
Intelligence Assistant) and the highest rank he attained while serving on
active duty was specialist four (SP4).

4.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows the
applicant served in the RVN from 24 April 1968 through 18 April 1969.
During his RVN tour, he was assigned to Battery A, 6th Battalion, 29th
Artillery, 4th Infantry Division, performing duties in MOS 13E.

5.   Item 40 (Wounds) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 is blank, indicating he
was never wounded/injured in action.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations)
shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the National Defense
Service Medal (NDSM), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), Army Commendation Medal
(ARCOM) with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster, RVN Campaign Medal and Sharpshooter
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  The PH is not included in this list of
earned awards.

6.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no
orders and/or other documents to show he was ever wounded/injured in
action, or that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH.  The MPRJ is
also void of any medical treatment documents that indicate the applicant
was ever treated for a combat related wound/injury.

7.  On 7 November 1969, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing 2 years of active military service.  The separation document
(DD Form 214) he was issued upon his separation shows that he earned the
following awards during his active duty tenure:  ARCOM with 1st Oak Leaf
Cluster, VSM with 2 bronze service stars, RVN Campaign Medal, NDSM, and
Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  The applicant
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of
Person Being Transferred or Discharged).

8.  In connection with the processing of this case, a member of the Board
staff reviewed the Department of the Army Vietnam Casualty List.  The
applicant’s name was not listed on this list of RVN battle casualties.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and
criteria concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 2-8 contains the
regulatory guidance pertaining to award of the PH.  It states, in pertinent
part, that in order to award a PH there must be evidence that the wound for
which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the
wound must have required medical treatment and the medical treatment must
have been made a matter of official record.
Army Regulation

10.  Paragraph 2-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the VSM.
It states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with
this award for each campaign a member is credited with participating in
while serving in the RVN.

11.  Table B-1 of the awards regulation contains a list of RVN campaigns.
It shows that during the applicant’s tenure of assignment in the RVN,
campaign credit was authorized for the Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase IV,
Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase V, Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VI and TET
1969 Counteroffensive.

12.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit
Register) establishes the eligibility of individual members for campaign
participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges
awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  It confirms that during his tenure of
assignment in the RVN, the applicant’s unit (6th Battalion, 29th Artillery)
earned the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC), RVN Gallantry Cross with
Palm Unit Citation and RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit
Citation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim of entitlement to the PH was carefully
considered.  However, by regulation, in order to award the PH it is
necessary to establish that a soldier was wounded as a result of enemy
action.  The veracity of his claim that he received a shrapnel wound while
serving in the RVN is not in question.  However, there is no evidence of
record to verify that he was ever wounded/injured in action, or that he was
treated for a combat related wound/injury.  As a result, the regulatory
burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied
in this case.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to
grant the requested relief.

2.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 November 1969.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 6 November 1972.  However, he failed to 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.

3.  The evidence does show that based on his RVN service and campaign
participation, the applicant is entitled to the MUC, RVN Gallantry Cross
with Palm Unit Citation, RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit
Citation and
3 bronze service stars with his VSM.  The omission of these awards is an
administrative matter that does not require Board action.  The Case
Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri will be requested
to make the necessary administrative correction to his record as outlined
by the Board in paragraph 3 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION
section below.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___PBI__  ___AU___  ___JLP _  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 his entitlement to Meritorious Unit Commendation,
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, Republic of
Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation and 3 bronze
service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal; and by providing him a
corrected separation document that includes these awards.




            ____Jennifer L. Prater______
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005499                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/05/10                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/11/07                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY with Adm Note                      |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  61   |107.0015                                |
|2.  46                  |107.0000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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