RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	   


	BOARD DATE:	  30 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008385 


	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. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Carmen Duncan

Chairperson

Mr. Chester A. Damian

Member

Mr. Ronald D. Gant

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 correction of his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) to show award of the Purple Heart for wounds received in the Republic of Vietnam.

2.  The applicant states that he was wounded in the Republic of Vietnam in January or February 1966 but never received the Purple Heart.

3.  The applicant provides two letters of support from former members of his unit.

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.  On 24 February 1964, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64B2O (Heavy Vehicle Driver).  He was assigned to Company C, 1st Engineer Battalion.                 

3.  On 16 September 1965, the applicant went with his unit for duty in the Republic of Vietnam.  He returned to the United States on 10 February 1966.

4.  On 11 February 1966, the applicant was released from active duty.  He had attained the rank of specialist four (pay grade E-4) and had completed 
1 year, 11 months, and 18 days of creditable active duty.

5.  Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), of the applicant's DD Form 214, lists his awards as the Vietnam Service Medal; Sharpshooter Marksmanship 
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16); and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-1).  It does not show award of the Purple Heart.

6.  There is no available evidence in the applicant’s records or on the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval (ADCAR) System showing that he was awarded a Purple Heart.
 
7.  The applicant’s name is not listed on the Vietnam Casualty Roster.

8.  Section 8 (Wounds Received Through Enemy Action), of the applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24), is blank.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 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 military medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  

10.  The two letters provided by the applicant are evidence of his being in combat and receiving a minor wound to his arm, possibly from an enemy mortar. 

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

12.  Section 2 (Chronological Record of Military Service), of the applicant's 
DA Form 24 shows that his conduct and efficiency were excellent.  The applicant’s records do not contain any evidence of disciplinary action.  There is no evidence to show that the commander took any action to deny him the Army Good Conduct Medal. 

13.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded to individuals who had completed a qualified period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the termination of a period of Federal military service.  The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial.  Ratings of "Unknown" for 
portions of the period under consideration are not disqualifying.  Service and efficiency ratings based upon academic proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 are not disqualifying.  


14.  Appendix B of Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that based on the applicant's dates of service in the Republic of Vietnam, he participated in the following two campaign periods: the Vietnam Defense and the Vietnam Counteroffensive.  This same regulation states that a bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign.  

15.  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 publication shows that the 1st Engineer Battalion, during the time of the applicant's assignment, was cited in Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 21, dated 1969, for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  It was also cited in DAGO 53, dated 1970, for award of the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class, Unit Citation. 

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).  This medal was awarded by the Government of Vietnam to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam during the period 1 March 1961 through 28 March 1973.  Qualifying service included assignment in Vietnam for 6 months or more.  Qualifying service outside the geographical limits of the Republic of Vietnam required the individual to provide direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam and Armed Forces.  Individuals who had qualified for award of the Vietnam Service Medal or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and were evacuated prior to completing six months of service due to wounds resulting from hostile action were entitled to award of the Vietnam Campaign Medal.

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) as amended provides that the National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 through 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 through 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 through 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There are no general orders that show the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart.  The applicant's name is not listed on the Vietnam Casualty Roster.  The evidence provided by the applicant shows that he had served in combat and may 
have received shrapnel wounds to his arm from an enemy mortar.  However, it does not provide substantiating evidence that this injury received medical treatment by military medical personnel.  There are also no available records showing that he received any such medical treatment.  Therefore, the applicant's request for award of the Purple Heart should not be granted.

2.  The applicant’s records clearly show that he distinguished himself in the performance of his military service.  Therefore, it is presumed that his not receiving an Army Good Conduct Medal for his service was an oversight.  Accordingly, he should be awarded this medal.

3.  Records show that the applicant served during a qualifying period for award of the National Defense Service Medal.  Therefore, his records should be corrected to show this award.

4.  The applicant’s unit was cited in general orders for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  Therefore, his records should be corrected to show these foreign unit awards.

5.  Records show that the applicant participated in two campaign periods during his service in the Republic of Vietnam.  Therefore, he is eligible for award of two bronze service stars to be affixed to his Vietnam Service Medal.

6.  Records show that the applicant served during a qualifying period for award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).  Therefore, his records should be corrected to show this award.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

_ CD___  __RDG__  __CAD  __  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION





BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period from 
24 February 1964 to 11 February 1966; and

	b.  showing, in addition to the awards shown on his DD Form 214, his authorized awards include the National Defense Service Medal; two bronze service stars to be affixed to his already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960); Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the Purple Heart.




	___       Carmen Duncan___
          		CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070008385
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071030
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
107
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.