Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003261C071029
Original file (20070003261C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        30 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003261


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |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, that his record be corrected by
documenting his Missing In Action (MIA) status.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that as a result of lost records, his
MIA status has never been documented.

3.  The applicant provides third-party statements from two sisters in
support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 11 September 1967.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

3.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows, in
Item 31 (Foreign Service) that he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN)
from 27 May 1968 through 27 May 1969.  Item 33 (Appointments and
Reductions) shows that he was promoted to specialist four on 1 December
1968, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active
duty.  It also shows that he was reduced to private first class (PFC) on 16
December 1968 and to private/E-2 (PV2) on 1 December 1969.

4.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows
that during his RVN tour, he was assigned to Company A and Company D,
1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, performing duties in MOS 11B as a
rifleman and automatic rifleman.

5.  The applicant's DA Form 20 contains no entries indicating that he was
ever reported MIA or placed in an MIA status, and his Military Personnel
Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any orders or other documents indicating
that he was ever reported MIA or placed in an MIA status.

6.  On 18 September 1970, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing 2 years, 11 months and 29 days of creditable active military
service and accruing 9 days of time lost due to being absent without leave
(AWOL) and in confinement.  The DD Form 214 he was issued, as amended by a
separation document correction (DD Form 215) issued on 10 May 2000, shows
he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:  National
Defense Service Medal; Bronze Star Medal; Army Commendation Medal; Purple
Heart; RVN Campaign Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze service
stars; Valorous Unit Award; RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation;
RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation; Combat Infantryman
Badge (CIB); Parachutist Badge; and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge
with Rifle Bar.

7.  The applicant provides two third-party statements from his sisters, who
attest to the fact the family was notified the applicant was MIA in the
RVN.

8.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff
reviewed the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing In Action (POW/MIA) Office
alphabetic listing of all United States personnel who are or were uncounted
for from the Vietnam War.  This list published by the Department of Defense
(DOD) does not include the applicant's name.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-1 (Army Casualty Program) prescribes the policies
and mandated operating tasks, responsibilities, and procedures for casualty
operations functions of the military personnel system.  The regulatory
requires casualty reports to be submitted on individuals who are reported
missing.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his record should be corrected to
document his MIA status was carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The sincerity of the applicant's contention and of the information
contained in the third-party statements from his sisters in not in
question.  However, his DA Form 20 contains no entries that indicate he was
ever MIA.  His MPRJ is void of any casualty reports, or other documents
showing he was ever in an unknown duty status, or that he was ever reported
MIA.  Further, his name does not appear on the DOD Vietnam War POW/MIA
listing.  As a result, absent any independent evidence that confirms he was
ever reported as MIA, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant
the requested relief.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

4.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that
this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in
service to our Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should be
justifiably proud of his service in arms.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___BPI __  __TMR__  __GJP __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  _____Bernad P. Ingold____
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070003261                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/08/30                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/09/18                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Trns to USAR                            |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |129.0100                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017162C071029

    Original file (20060017162C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060017162 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. The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request that his record be corrected to show his Prisoner of War (POW) status. The applicant provides a self-authored statement as new evidence in which he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012721C080407

    Original file (20070012721C080407.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His record also contains no orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty, and the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in Item 41 of his DA Form 20 or in the list of awards contained on his DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature on the date of his separation. Thus, absent any evidence of record to corroborate the information contained in the witness statements provided,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060485C070421

    Original file (2001060485C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states, in effect, that notwithstanding the original decision of the Board to deny his request for a second POW medal, a review of the correspondence and his request for reconsideration with his presentation of new evidence will substantiate his entitlement to this award and justify his resubmission. The applicant provided the enclosed third party statement from an individual whom he claims was the replacement unit commander that debriefed him upon his return to military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002565C071029

    Original file (20070002565C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, by regulation, in order to support award of the PH, there must be evidence confirming the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of or was caused by enemy action, that the wound required treatment by military medical personnel, and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. Finally, while the veracity of the applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH and of the information contained in the third-party statement and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013121C080407

    Original file (20070013121C080407.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    During its original review of the case, the Board found no evidence that the applicant's wounds were the result of hostile action, and that the evidence showed the applicant accidentally detonated a friendly mechanical ambush device, which caused his injury. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was wounded in action in the RVN on 25 August 1970, when a mechanical ambush devise was accidentally detonated. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002161C071029

    Original file (20070002161C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides a statement from an individual who indicates he was the MEDIC that treated the applicant's wound. The applicant provides a statement from a former service member who served as a platoon sergeant with the applicant during the battle of Nhi Ha. Absent any evidence of record to corroborate the information contained in the third-party statements provided and/or of any evidence that the applicant was awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty, the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002488

    Original file (20090002488.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. During its original review of the applicant's case, the Board found no evidence of record that showed the applicant was wounded or injured as a result of enemy action, or that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty. Absent any evidence of record to corroborate the information contained in the third-party statements provided by the applicant, or medical treatment records that confirm...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012855

    Original file (20060012855.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    During its original review of the applicant's case, the Board found no evidence of record that showed the applicant was wounded or injured as a result of enemy action or that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty. By regulation, in order to support award of the PH, there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of or was caused by enemy action, that it required treatment by military...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006475C070206

    Original file (20050006475C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that he was wounded while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), but was never recommended for, or awarded the PH. The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no orders or other documents that indicate he was ever wounded in action, or awarded the PH. Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show his entitlement to the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002117C071029

    Original file (20070002117C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states, in effect, that while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), he was injured during an artillery attack. The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of orders or any other documents showing the applicant was ever recommended for, or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty. His record is void of orders or any other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on...