RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 December 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009737


      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:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose M. Lys                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward E. Montgomery          |     |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
correction of his record to reflect service in the Republic of Vietnam
(RVN).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should be issued the PH and
that his service in the RVN should be recorded on his separation document
(DD Form 214).  He claims that he traveled to the RVN from Korea, which was
his original assignment, and having survived it all, he wants what is
rightfully his.

3.  The applicant provides a Military Service Data print-out 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 was initially inducted into the
Army and entered active duty on 26 September 1966, and that he was
honorably discharged for the purpose of enlistment in the Regular Army on
30 September 1966.  On 30 September 1966, he enlisted in the RA for 3
years.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS)
55B (Ammunition Storage Specialist), and specialist four (SP4) is the
highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.

3.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows, in
Item 31 (Foreign Service), that he served in Korea from 28 November 1967
through 31 December 1968.  There is no RVN service entered in this Item.

4.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows
that during his tour in Korea, he was assigned to Headquarters and
Headquarters Company (HHC), 2nd Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment from 12
December 1967 through 9 January 1968 and HHC, 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry
Regiment from
10 January through 24 May 1968. performing duties in MOS 55B (Powerman);
and as a Chorus Member in various units from 25 May through 30 December
1968.  There is no indication that any of this service was performed in the
RVN.  Item 40 (Wounds) 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 29 May 1969.

5.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains
assignment orders that confirm the applicant was assigned to and served in
Korea during the entire period between 28 November 1967 through
31 December 1968.

6.  The applicant's MPRJ contains no order or other documents that indicate
he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while
serving on active duty, or that shows he was ever treated for a combat
related wound or injury by military medical personnel during his active
duty tenure.

7.  On 12 August 1969, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing
3 years of active military service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows
that he completed 1 year, 1 month and 3 days of overseas service in Korea,
and that he earned the National Defense Service Medal and the Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal-Korea.  The PH is not included in the list of awards
contained on the DD Form 214, and the applicant authenticated this document
with his signature on the date of his separation.

8.  The applicant provides a Military Service Data print-out from an
unknown source that indicates he served in the RVN from May through July
1968.

9.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board’s staff
reviewed the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster.  This
search failed to reveal an entry on this document pertaining to the
applicant.

10.  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 a member was
wounded or injured as a result of enemy action.  The wound or injury for
which the PH is being awarded must have required treatment by a medical
officer and this treatment must be supported by medical treatment records
that were made a matter of official record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that he is entitled to the PH and that his
service in the RVN should be documented on his record were carefully
considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support these
claims.

2.  The applicant's record and all orders and documents on file in his MPRJ
show that he was assigned to and served in Korea during the entire period
from
28 November 1967 through 31 December 1968.  As a result, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support documenting RVN service on his
DD Form 214.

3.  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.  Item 40
of the applicant's DA Form 20 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.  The applicant last audited the DA Form 20 on
29 May 1969, nearly 6 months after he departed the United States Army
Pacific for the United States.  In effect, this audit was his verification
that the information on the record, to include the entries in Items 31, 38,
40 and 41, were correct at that time.

4.  The PH is also not included in the list of awards contained on the
applicant's DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature on the
date of his REFRAD.  In effect, his signature was his verification that the
information contained on the separation document, to include the overseas
service entry and the list of awards, was correct at the time it was
prepared and issued.  His record is also void of any orders or other
documents that show he was ever wounded in action or awarded the PH by
proper authority while serving on active duty.
5.  Further, there are no medical treatment documents on file in his record
that show he was ever treated for a combat related wound or injury, and his
name is not included on the Vietnam Casualty Roster, the official DA list
of RVN battle casualties.  As a result, 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

__KAN __  __RML __  __EEM__  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.




                                  _____Kathleen A. Newman___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070009737                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/12/06                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/08/12                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000                                |
|2.  46                  |107.0000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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