RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011631


      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. Eric S. Moore                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol A. Kornhoff             |     |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 his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or
Discharge) be corrected to show award of the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that a request was not submitted for
him to receive the Purple Heart, but thinks he should have received the
award.

3.  The applicant provides copies of two pages from his chronological
record of medical care.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or which
occurred on 21 May 1970, the date he was separated from active duty.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 14 December 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 military records show that he entered active duty on 6
August 1968.  He successfully completed basic training and advanced
individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty
(MOS) 53B (Acetylene & Oxygen Production Specialist).  He served in Vietnam
from 21 July 1969 through 15 December 1969.  He was a member of the 67th
Engineer Detachment from 25 July 1969 through 7 December 1969, and his
remaining time was spent with the Military Hospital Command.  He was
honorably discharged on 21 May 1970.

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 does not show award of the Purple Heart in
item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign
Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).

5.  There are no orders in the applicant's records that show he was awarded
the Purple Heart.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not
show any entry in item 40 (Wounds) and does not list the Purple Heart in
item 41 (Awards and Decorations).
6.  The applicant's name is not listed on the Vietnam Casualty Roster.

7.  In the two pages provided by the applicant from his chronological
record of medical care, the entries made reference to a superficial
laceration to his scalp, the crushing of his left 4th digit, and a burn on
his left forearm from a hot piece of steel.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Purple Heart is awarded for
a wound 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, and the medical treatment must have
been made a matter of official record.  This regulation also provides that
there is no statute of limitations on requests for award of the Purple
Heart.

9.  Review of the applicant's personnel records indicate that he is
eligible for additional awards that are not shown on his DD Form 214.

10.  There is no evidence the applicant received the first award of the
Army Good Conduct Medal.  There also is no evidence that the applicant was
disqualified by his chain of command from receiving the Army Good Conduct
Medal.  His records do not contain any adverse information, and he received
conduct and efficiency ratings of "excellent" throughout his service.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Army Good
Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their
conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty
enlisted service.  The regulation states that, after 27 June 1950 to the
present time, the current standard for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal
is 3 years of qualifying service, but as little as one year is required for
the first award in those cases when the period of service ends with the
termination of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic
entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be
justified.

12.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign
Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units
serving in Vietnam.  This document shows that, at the time of the
applicant's assignment to the 67th Engineer Detachment, that unit was cited
for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit
Citation.




13.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Vietnam Service
Medal.  Appendix B of Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) lists, in
pertinent part, the military campaign periods of the Vietnam War.  Based on
the applicant's dates of service in Vietnam, Appendix B shows that he
participated in the following two campaigns: Vietnam Summer-Fall 1969, and
Vietnam Winter-Spring 1970.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-2, in pertinent part, authorizes award of a
bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed
in Appendix B of this regulation and states that authorized bronze service
stars will be worn on the appropriate service medal.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's claim of entitlement to award of the Purple Heart was
carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support
his contention.  By regulation, in order to award the Purple Heart it is
necessary to establish that a Soldier was wounded in action, that the wound
required treatment by a medical officer, and the treatment record must have
been made a matter of official record.

2.  The evidence shows that the applicant received hospital treatment.  His
record is void of any documentary evidence that shows he was ever wounded
in action, or awarded the Purple Heart thereafter.

3.  Although the veracity of the applicant's claim that he sustained his
injuries in the Republic of Vietnam is not in question, lacking any
corroborating evidence of record showing that he was treated for a
wound/injury that was the direct result of or caused by enemy action, the
regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the Purple Heart
has not been satisfied in this case.  As a result, his request for a Purple
Heart must be denied.

4.  The applicant was separated on 21 May 1970 with 1 year, 9 months, and
    6 days of active service and had no lost time.  The applicant's
available records do not contain evidence which would disqualify him from
receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal.  Therefore, he is entitled to award
of the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 6 August 1968 through 21 May
1970 based on completion of a period of qualifying service ending with
termination of a period of Federal military service.



5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows the Vietnam Service Medal as an
authorized award.  However, evidence of record shows the applicant
participated in two campaigns during his assignment in Vietnam.  Therefore,
the applicant is entitled to the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze
service stars and correction of his DD Form 214 to show this award.

6.  The applicant is entitled to award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry
Cross with Palm Unit Citation.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of
his records to show this unit award.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 21 May 1970.  Therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of an error or injustice
expired on          20 May 1973.  Although the applicant did not file
within the ABCMR's statute of limitations, it is appropriate to waiver
failure to timely file in this case based on the fact there is no statute
of limitations on requests for award of the Purple Heart.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___CAK __  __ JKS_  __ ENA__  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 by:

      a.  Awarding the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 6 August 1968
through 21 May 1970;

      b.  deleting the Vietnam Service Medal from the DD Form 214;

      c.  adding the Good Conduct Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with two
bronze service stars, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm
Unit Citation to the DD Form 214.

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
the Purple Heart.




                                  ______John N. Slone_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011631                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/15                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |MR SCHNEIDER                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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