RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003446


      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. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Marla J. N. Troup             |     |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, in effect, award of the Purple Heart (PH) and
Bronze Star Medal (BSM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he is entitled to the PH based on
being wounded in action on 22 March 1968, while serving with the 20th
Engineer Brigade in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He also requests to be
awarded the BSM for meritorious achievement in ground operations against
hostile forces during the period July 1967 through May 1968.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and a third-party
statement 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 requests award of the BSM.  However, there are no orders
or other evidence on file in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)
that confirms he is entitled to this award.  In the absence of authority
for this award, he may request award of the BSM under the provisions of
Section 1130 of Title 10 of the United States Code (10 USC 1130).  The
applicant has been notified by separate correspondence of the procedures
for applying for this award under 10 USC 1130.  As a result, his request
for award of the BSM will not be discussed further in this Record of
Proceedings.

3.  The applicant's record shows that on 31 August 1986, the applicant was
honorably released from active duty for the purpose of retirement, in the
rank of sergeant first class (SFC), after completing a total of 20 years
and 8 days of active military service.

4.  The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains an
Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) that was maintained through
1974.  This record shows the applicant served in the RVN from 2 June 1967
to 29 May 1968. Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that during his RVN
tour, he was assigned to Company C, 93rd Engineer Battalion, performing
duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52F as an electrician.

5.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the applicant's DA Form 20 is blank and the PH is
not included in the list of awards contained in Item 41 (Awards and
Decorations).  The applicant last audited the DA Form 20 on 15 July 1974.

6.  The applicant's OMPF also contains a Personnel Qualification Record
(DA Form 2-1) that was prepared on the applicant on 20 April 1984.  Item 9
(Awards, Decorations & Campaigns) of this record does not include the PH.
The applicant last audited this record on 17 May 1984.

7.  The applicant's OMPF contains no orders or other documents that
indicate the applicant was ever recommended for or awarded either the PH by
proper authority while serving on active duty.  It is also void of any
medical treatment records that show the applicant was ever treated for a
combat related wound or injury while serving on active duty.

8.  On 31 August 1986, the applicant was honorably retired in the rank of
SFC after completing 20 years and 8 days of active military service.  The
separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time shows, in Item
13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or
Authorized), that he earned the following awards during his active duty
tenure:  Army Service Ribbon; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam
Service Medal; RVN Campaign Medal with 60 Device; Overseas Service Ribbon
with Numeral 3; Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon
with Numeral 3; Valorous Unit Award; Overseas Service Bars (7); Army
Achievement Medal; Army Commendation Medal; RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm
Unit Citation; RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation;
Army Good Conduct Medal (6th Award); Meritorious Service Medal; and Expert
Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Pistol Bars.  The PH is not
included in the list of awards contained in Item 13 and the applicant
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 21 (Signature of
Member Being Separated) on 31 August 1984, the date of his REFRAD for
retirement.

9.  The applicant provides a third-party statement from an individual who
indicates he served with the applicant in the RVN.  This individual
indicates that he received a PH for a wound he received on 22 March 1968.
He claims that on
the night of the incident, the unit containment area suffered numerous
incoming mortar rounds, many of which landed in their billeting area, motor
park and concrete batch plant.  He states that when the alarm sounded,
company personnel headed for their respective bunkers.  He further states
the company commander, radio operator, and a construction
mechanic/electrician were assigned to the company command post (CP), and
just before he arrived at the entrance to the company CP, mortar round
struck, spraying hot shrapnel over a wide area.  He goes on to indicate
that a piece of shrapnel hit him in the upper chest near his neck, and the
construction mechanic was also struck in the arm.

10.  This individual claims that neither the wound he received or the wound
the applicant received were severely debilitating so they continued to
function, and that the name of the construction mechanic was the same as
the applicant's, and he was also the construction mechanic/electrician that
was dispatched to restore power so the radio equipment could be used to
notify battalion and division.  He also states that the next day, a Captain
from the 93rd Engineer Battalion took down all the pertinent information,
which when processed, resulted in him receiving the PH.  He assumed the
applicant had also received the same award. He states that it was not until
2006 that he learned the applicant did not receive the PH.  He indicates
that he actually prepared no paperwork and assumed the battalion would take
care of everything, as they did with his award.  He finally affirms that
the applicant is entitled to a PH that was somehow never issued at the time
of the incident on 22 March 1968, and he includes copies of his PH award
orders and citation, and a Daily Staff Journal with his statement.

11.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff
reviewed the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster.  The
applicant's name was not included on this casualty list.

12.  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 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,
that the wound required treatment by military medical personnel, and a
record of this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he is entitled to the PH was carefully
considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.


2.  The applicant's OMPF contains a DA Form 20 that was last audited by the
applicant on 15 July 1974, more than 6 years after the date he claims to
have been wounded in action and after the completion of his tour in the
RVN.  Item 40 is blank, which indicates he was never wounded in action and
the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in Item 41.  In
effect, the applicant's
15 July 1974 audit was his verification that the information contained on
the record, to include the Item 40 and Item 41 entries, was correct at that
time.

3.  The OMPF also contains a DA Form 2-1, which the applicant last reviewed
on 17 May 1984, almost 16 years after the applicant's departure from the
RVN.  The list of awards contained in Item 9 of this record does not
include the PH.  In effect, the applicant's 17 May 1984 review of this
record was his verification that information on the record, to include the
list of awards in Item 9, was correct at that time.

4.  Further, the applicant's OMPF is void of any orders or other documents
that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper
authority.  It also contains no medical treatment records that show he was
ever treated for a combat related wound or injury during his active duty
tenure.  In addition, the applicant's DD Form 214 does not include the PH
in the list of awards contained in Item 13, and the applicant authenticated
this document with his signature on the date of his separation, 31 August
1986, more than 18 years after he completed his tour in the RVN.  In
effect, his signature was his verification that the information contained
on the separation document was correct at the time it was prepared and
issued.

5.  Finally, the applicant's name is not included on the Vietnam Casualty
Roster, the official DA list of RVN battle casualties.  Although the
sincerity of the applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH and of the
information contained in the third-party statement provided is not in
question, there is no evidence showing that the applicant ever pursued
award of the PH in the more than 18 years he continued to serve on active
duty after he completed his RVN tour.  Absent orders confirming he was
awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty, or medical
treatment records showing he treated for a combat related wound or injury
during his active duty tenure, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to
support award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case.

6.  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.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LCB __  __MJNT _  __EIF  __  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.




                                  _____Larry C. Bergquist____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070003446                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/09/11                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1986/08/31                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Retirement                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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