RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  27 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012163 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. Dean L. Turnbull

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Kenneth L. Wright

Chairperson

Mr. Chester A. Damian

Member

Ms. Ernestine I. Fields

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 that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show the award of the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he never received the Purple Heart for his injuries sustained while serving in Vietnam.  Also, he states because of his foolish pride and youth he never pressed for the award.  He would like to pass this significant award on to his children.

3.  The applicant provides:

      a.  a copy of a written statement.  In this statement, the applicant says that hitting his head on the chopper did not cause the concussion.  His concussion and hearing problems came from several claymore and grenade explosions that were in very close proximity to his team as they were extracting from a firefight; and

      b.  a copy of Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 22 August 1969.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 16 October 1969.  The application submitted in this case is dated 14 August 2006.

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 records show that he entered active duty on 17 October 1966. He completed basic combat training and attended advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 11B1P (Light Weapons Infantryman).

4.  He served a tour of duty with Company F, 51st Infantry (Long Range Patrol) in the Republic of Vietnam during the period 2 October 1967 to 22 September 1968.

5.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form  
214 shows the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device, Combat Infantryman Badge, Parachutist Badge, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  However, it does not show award of the Purple Heart.

6.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows no entry.

7.  There are no general orders in the available records which show the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart.

8.  The applicant's last Report of Medical History, dated 22 August 1969, shows the entry "Indentation on forehead-field operation in RVN – hit head on chopper while being extracted, May 68."  "Right leg below knee cut from bamboo,  
Apr 68."

9.  A review of the Republic of Vietnam Casualty Files does not show the applicant's name listed among those wounded.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 Military Awards provides, in pertinent part, 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 by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  This regulation also provides that there are no time limitations on requests for award of the Purple Heart.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, paragraph 2-8 (3) states, in pertinent part, that when contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the applicant was participating in direct or indirect combat operation is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.  Item (5) (g) of this same regulation states, in pertinent part, that an example of an injury or wound which clearly does not qualify for award of the Purple Heart is an accident, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wound not related to or caused by enemy action.

12.  Review of the applicant's records indicates entitlement to additional awards that are not shown on his DD Form 214.

13.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in the Republic of Vietnam.  This document shows the unit, to which the applicant was assigned, Company F, 51st Infantry (Long Range Patrol), was cited for an award of the Valorous Unit Award based on Department of the Army General Orders Number 48, dated 1968 and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation based on Department of the Army General Orders Number 43, dated 1970.

14.  The applicant's records show that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal.  However, his DD Form 214 does not show any bronze service stars indicating campaign credit.

15.  Appendix B of Army Regulation 600-8-22 Military Awards shows that based on the applicant's dates of service in the Republic of Vietnam, he participated in the Vietnam Counter offensive Phase III (1 June 1967 to 29 January 1968); TET Counteroffensive (30 January 1968 to 1 April 1968); Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VI (2 April 1968 to 30 June 1968); and the Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase V (1 July 1968 to 1 November 1968).  This same regulation states that a bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is entitled to award of the Purple Heart.

2.  There are no general orders that show the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart.  There is no evidence in his available records which shows he was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action or treated for such wounds.  His name does not appear on the Republic of Vietnam Casualty Files.

3.  The applicant stated that he did not receive a concussion from hitting his head on the chopper, the concussion was caused by several claymore mine and grenade explosions that were in very close proximity to his team as they were extracted from a firefight.

4.  However, there is no evidence to show that the applicant was wounded by the claymore mine and grenade explosions as a result of enemy fire.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his records to show the award of the Purple Heart.

5.  Orders show that the applicant is entitled to the award of the Valorous Unit Award.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show this award.

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

7.  Evidence of records show that the applicant was assigned to a unit that participated in four campaigns.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show four bronze service stars to be affixed to his Vietnam Service Medal.

8.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore, administrative correction of the applicant’s records will be accomplished by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined by the Board in paragraph 3 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

9.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 16 October 1969.  Therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 15 October 1972.  Although the applicant did not file within the ABCMR's statute of limitations, it is appropriate to waive 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 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____klw__  ___eif___  ___cad__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that it was appropriate to waive failure to timely file in this case based on the Purple Heart.

2.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned to show award of the Purple Heart.

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 by showing award of the Valorous Unit Award, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and four bronze service stars to be affixed to his already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal.




_________Kenneth L. Wright________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012163
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070327
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.