RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           20 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050013197


      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:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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, he received a shrapnel wound to his
right ankle during an enemy attack on his base camp in the Republic of
Vietnam (RVN) in January 1967.  He claims what began as a minor cut, became
a rash that extended all over his body.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Statement; Chronological Record of Medical Care
(SF 600); Doctor’s Statement; and Third-Party Statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 28 June 1968.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
3 January 2005.

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 he was inducted into the Army and entered
active duty on 29 June 1966.  He was trained in, awarded and served in
military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer), and that 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 he
served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 2 December 1966 through 3
December 1967.  It further shows that during his RVN tour, he was assigned
to Company A, 65th Engineer Battalion.  Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and Item
41 (Awards and Decorations) does not include the PH in the list of awards
entered.  Item 48 (Date of Audit) shows the applicant last reviewed and
audited the DA Form 20 on
31 January 1968.
5.  On 28 June 1968, the applicant was honorably separated at the
expiration
of his term of service.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was
issued shows he completed a total of 2 year of active military service.

6.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 also shows he earned the following awards
during his active duty tenure:  National Defense Service Medal; Army Good
Conduct Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; and RVN Campaign Medal.  The
applicant authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature in Item 32
(Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged).

7.  The medical treatment records provided by the applicant confirm he was
treated for a skin condition on numerous occasions between January and July
1967.  These documents do not indicate the skin condition was combat
related, and in fact indicate the applicant had a history of eczema since
the age of 12.

8.  The applicant also provides a doctor’s statement, dated in January
2005.  The doctor indicates he saw the applicant several years ago for
chronic dermatitis and had reviewed the applicant’s extensive medical
records from 1966 through the present.  He states that apparently, the
applicant received a cut to his leg while in Vietnam and developed an
infection and the subsequent dermatitis that could not be cleared.  He
indicates the applicant’s childhood condition of athlete’s foot was
resolved and was not related to the dermatitis the applicant experienced
over the past several years.

9.  The applicant further provides a third-party statement from an
individual who indicated he served with the applicant in the RVN.  He
states he was the company cook and was in the same platoon as the
applicant.  He attests to the fact the applicant was under medical
supervision for a mortar round injury he sustained in the RVN.  He further
states he served in combat with the applicant.

10.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff
reviewed the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster.  This
search did not reveal the applicant’s name.

11.  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 awarding the PH.  It states, in pertinent

part, that the PH is awarded to any member who has been wounded or killed
in action.
12.  The awards regulation defines a wound as an injury to any part of the
body from an outside force or agent sustained under conditions defined by
this regulation.  In order to support awarding a member the PH, it is
necessary to establish that the wound, for which the award is being made,
required treatment by a medical officer.  This treatment must be supported
by records of medical treatment for the wound or injury received in action,
and must have been made a matter of official record.

13.  Paragraph 2-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the
Vietnam Service Medal.  It states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service
star is authorized with this award for each RVN campaign a member is
credited with participating in.  Table B-1 contains a list of RVN
campaigns, and it shows that during his tenure of assignment, the applicant
was credited with participating in the Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase II
and Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase III campaigns.

14.  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 (65th Engineer Battalion) was
awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation, 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 and the supporting
documents he provided were carefully considered.  However, by regulation,
in order to support award of the PH, it is necessary to establish that the
wound, for which the award is being made, was received as a direct result
of, or was caused by enemy action, the wound required treatment by a
medical officer, and a record of this treatment must have been made a
matter of official record.

2.  The medical treatment records on file and provided by the applicant,
and the doctor’s letter submitted, confirm the applicant was extensively
treated for a skin condition he developed while in the RVN.  However, none
of these documents indicate, or verify his skin condition was the result of
a combat related wound/injury.  The fact his treatment for this condition
is well documented is an indication the applicant’s chain of command did
not believe the condition was combat related and did not support award of
the PH.

3.  The applicant’s official military personnel record contains no
indication that he was ever wounded in action, or that he was treated for a
combat related wound.  His DA Form 20 is void of an entry in Item 40
showing he was wounded in action, and does not include the PH in the list
of authorized awards in Item 41.  The applicant last audited this record on
31 January 1968, subsequent to completion of his tour in the RVN.  This
audit, in effect, was his verification that the information contained on
the DA Form 20, to include Item 40 and Item 41, was correct on that date.

4.  Further, the PH is not included in the list of awards contained on his
DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature on the date of his
separation.  His signature on this document, in effect, was his
verification that the information contained on the DD Form 214, to include
the list of awards, was correct at the time the separation document was
prepared and issued.  Finally, the applicant’s name is not included on the
Vietnam casualty roster, the official DA list of RVN battle casualties.

5.  The veracity of the information contained in the third-party statement
provided by the applicant, and of his claim of entitlement to the PH is not
in question.  However, absent any evidence of record confirming his skin
condition was the result of a wound/injury he received as a direct result
of, or that was caused by  enemy action, the regulatory burden of proof
necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice related to award of the PH now under consideration on 28 June
1968.   Therefore, the time for him file a request for correction of any
error or injustice expired on 27 June 1971.  He 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.

7.  The record confirms the applicant is entitled to the Meritorious Unit
Commendation, RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, RVN Civil
Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation and 2 bronze service stars
with his Vietnam Service Medal.  The omission of these awards from his
record is an administrative matter that does not require Board action.  As
a result, the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri
will be requested to make the necessary corrections as outlined in
paragraph 3 of the
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JTM_  ___JBG__  __JRM__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice related to award of the
Purple Heart.  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 that based on his RVN service and campaign participation,
he is entitled to the Meritorious Unit Commendation, Republic of Vietnam
Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation,  Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions
Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, and 2 bronze service stars with his
Vietnam Service Medal; and by providing him a corrected separation document
that includes these awards.




            ____John T. Meixell______
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050013197                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/10/20                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1968/06/28                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY with Admin Note                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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