RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005113


      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. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin             |     |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, the PH should be added to his record.


3.  The applicant provides a Clinical Record (SF 509) 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 initially enlisted in the Regular
Army and entered active duty on 7 July 1966.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 12C (Bridge Specialist).

3.  On 3 July 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active duty,
in the rank of specialist four (SP4), after completing 2 years, 11 months,
and 27 days of active military service.  The separation document (DD Form
214) he was issued at this time shows, in Item 24 (Decorations, Medals,
Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or
Authorized), that he earned the following awards during this period of
active duty service:  Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM); National Defense
Service Medal (NDSM); Vietnam Service Medal (VSM); RVN Campaign Medal; and
Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  The
applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32
(Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged) on the date of his
separation.

4.  On 20 January 1971, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army and
reentered active duty.

5.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
completed two tours of duty in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  The first
tour was from 7 December 1966 through 6 December 1967, and the second tour
was from 14 February 1971 through 28 February 1972.

6.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows
that during his first RVN tour, he was assigned to Companies C and D, 1st
Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division.  During his second tour, he was
assigned to the following units for the periods indicated:  Company A, 7th
Engineer Brigade,
5th Infantry Division, from 25 March through 8 August 1971; 100th Float
Bridge,
31st Engineer Battalion, from 9 August through 17 November 1971; and
Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 31st Engineer Battalion with
duty USA Engineer Company, United States Army Pacific (USARPAC), from
18 November 1971 through 25 February 1972.  In all his units in the RVN, he
performed duties in MOS 12C as a bridge specialist.

7.  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).  Item 48 (Date of Audit) shows the applicant last audited the
DA Form 20 on
31 August 1973.

8.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of
orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or
awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty.  The
medical treatment records on file in the MPRJ do not show the applicant was
ever treated for a combat related wound or injury.

9.  On 23 October 1973, the applicant was honorably discharged, in the rank
of SP4, for the purpose of joining the Army National Guard (ARNG).  The DD
Form 214 he was issued at this time shows he completed a total of 5 years
and
9 months of active military service.  Item 24 shows that during the period
of active duty covered by the separation document, he earned 2 Overseas
Service Bars.  The PH was not included in Item 24 and the applicant
authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature in Item 32 on the date of
his separation.

10.  The applicant provides an SF 509 that shows he was treated for the
following conditions on the dates indicated:  23 March 1967, lesion on his
heel; 10 April 1967, upset stomach; 27 April 1967, small cut from rusty
nail; and 1 May 1967, abdominal pain.  This clinical record gives no
indication that any of the conditions he was treated for were received as a
result of enemy action.

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.

13.  Paragraph 2-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the
Vietnam Service Medal and states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service
star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member is credited
with participating in while serving in the RVN.  A silver star is used in
lieu of 5 bronze service stars to denote participation in 5 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 units (Companies C and D, 1st
Engineer Battalion, 1st Infantry Division; Company A, 7th Engineer Brigade,
5th Infantry Division;
100th Float Bridge, 31st Engineer Battalion; and USA Engineer Company,
USARPAC) received the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC), RVN Gallantry
Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First
Class Unit Citation.  It further shows that during this period,
participation credit was granted for the Vietnam Defense Campaign, Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phase I, Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase II, Vietnam
Counteroffensive Phase III, Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VII,
Consolidation I, and Consolidation II campaigns.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH was carefully
considered.  However, by regulation, in order to support award of 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.

2.  Item 40 of the applicant's DA Form 20 is blank, which indicates he was
never wounded in action.  The PH is not included in the list of awards
contained in Item 41 and the applicant last audited the DA Form 20 on 31
August 1973, more than a year after he completed his last RVN tour.  The PH
is also not included in the list of awards contained in Item 24 of either
his 3 July 1969 or 23 October 1973 DD Forms 214, both of which he
authenticated with his signature on the dates of his separation.  In
effect, his signature was his verification that the information contained
on these separation documents, to include the Item 24 entries, was correct
at the time the DD Forms 214 were prepared and issued.

3.  The SF Form 509 provided by the applicant confirms he was treated for
four separate medical problems between 23 March and 1 May 1967; however,
this document does not indicate that any of these conditions were received
as a result of enemy action.  His MPRJ is void of any orders or other
documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by
proper authority, and it contains no medical treatment records that show he
was treated for a combat-related wound or injury while serving on active
duty.  Therefore, absent any independent evidence showing he was wounded in
action or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty,
the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not
been satisfied in this case.

4.  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 related to award of the
PH.

5.  The evidence of record does show that based on service and campaign
participation in the RVN, he is entitled to the MUC, RVN Gallantry Cross
with Palm Unit Citation, RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit
Citation, and 1 silver service star and 2 bronze service stars with his
VSM.
The omission of these awards from his separation document is an
administrative matter that does not require Board action.  Therefore, the
Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, will
administratively correct his record as outlined by the Board in paragraph 2
of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.







BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEV  __  __RDG  _  __RCH__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.

2.  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 his entitlement 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 1 silver
service star and 2 bronze service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal; and
by providing him a correction to his separation document that includes
these changes.




                                  _____James E. Vick______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070005113                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/09/19                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1973/10/23                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY with Note                          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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