RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  11 December 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010031 


	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

Mrs. Nancy L. Amos

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

Member

Ms. Sherry J. Stone

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 one application, that the names on an Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) citation and a Bronze Star Medal (BSM) citation be changed to reflect his name.  He also requests that the U. S. Army Southern European Task Force Citation for Award of the Army Commendation Medal be removed from his record.  He also requests award of the Purple Heart.

2.  In a second application, the applicant requests that item 14 ( District, Area Command or Corps to Which Reservist Transferred) (sic, but probably meaning item 25 (Education and Training Completed)) of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to include his training; that item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) be corrected to show the Purple Heart, the ARCOM with “V” device, and the BSM with “V” device; that item 10c (Date Inducted) be corrected to show he was inducted on 8 December 1967; that item 17c (Date of Entry, Current Active Service other than by Induction) be corrected to show he entered active duty on 23 April 1968; and, in effect, that item 30 (Remarks) be corrected to show he served in Vietnam from 1 November 1968 through 30 March 1970.

3.  The applicant states, in regard to his first application, that he requested his service record and he was sent an ARCOM citation, a BSM citation, and a U. S. Army Southern European Task Force Citation for Award of the Army Commendation Medal pertaining to other personnel, but he was not sent Purple Heart (orders).  He has shrapnel inside his lung tissue.  

4.  In regard to the applicant’s second application, the applicant states that   when he was discharged out of the Republic of Vietnam, the personnel office     in Chu Lai said they had no record of his being in Vietnam.  In a letter, dated       4 September 2007, he states he was stationed at Landing Zone Baldy with Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 196th Infantry Brigade.  About a month after arriving, he was walking right flank when a mortar round came in.  The point man took a direct hit and was killed.  The round injured him (the applicant), and he was medically evacuated to the 91st Evacuation Hospital in Chu Lai.  There, the doctors took x-rays and pulled pieces of metal out of his face and side and bandaged him up.  He spent two weeks at Chu Lai before returning to his unit, where he was given a Purple Heart and a BSM with “V” device.  He extended his tour of duty for the first time and the Army gave him 30 days (rest and recuperation) in Australia.

5.  The applicant states that he then went back to the field, performing his duties as a radio-telephone operator/forward observer.  He went on many patrols and reconnaissance missions with different infantry units.  When his time was up, he extended for the last and final time.  He received an ARCOM with a “V” device for assisting in the retrieval of wounded/killed in action Soldiers while under fire from enemy forces.  However, he did not finish his second extension and went to Chu Lai to start processing for separation.  Once he was in Chu Lai at the personnel office they could not locate his records nor could they find any evidence of his being in Vietnam.  He did not think to mention his name change due to his adoption.  His son started helping him to investigate what happened to his records.  Among other documents of interest, his son came across some information regarding a scout dog named “I___” assigned to Chu Lai with the 63d Scouts.  

6.  Also in regard to the applicant’s second application, his son wrote a letter, dated 17 September 2007, to his Representative in Congress (two pages of which are available).  In this letter, his son indicated that his father’s problems may have started with a name problem when he was processing for induction.  He believes his father’s Purple Heart may have been awarded to another Soldier with a similar name.  The evidence he has that his father suffered an injury to his chest is a medical document indicating his father’s lungs gave the appearance of someone who has tuberculosis (TB).  His father’s induction physical showed that he did not have TB.  

7.  The applicant provides an ARCOM citation, a BSM citation, and a U. S. Army Southern European Task Force Citation for Award of the Army Commendation Medal, all pertaining to persons other than the applicant; a copy of his DD Form 214; a Selective Service System Order to Report for Armed Forces Physical Examination; a Standard Form (SF) 601 (Immunization Record); one page of his induction physical; an SF 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dates of treatment from around November 1968 through January 1970 (some of the dates are illegible); one page of his SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated       30 March 1970; an SF 5195 (Radiographic Report), dated 30 March 1970; page 2 of a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision, prepared around June 2007; and an article on Scout Dog I___.

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 requested, in effect, correction of his records to show award of the ARCOM with “V” device and the BSM with “V” device.  There are no orders or other evidence authorizing these decorations to the applicant.  In the absence of a proper award authority for these decorations, the applicant may request award of these two decorations under the provisions of Section 1130 of Title 10, United States Code.  The applicant has been notified by separate correspondence of the procedures for applying for this decoration under Section 1130.

3.  The applicant provided his Selective Service System Order to Report for Armed Forces Physical Examination, which directed him to present himself for an Armed Forces physical examination on 8 December 1967.  This document informed him, in part, “Following your examination your local board will mail you a statement issued by the commanding officer of the station showing whether you are qualified for military service under current standards.”  This document also shows his name as John Lee S___.

4.  The applicant’s DD Form 47 (Record of Induction) shows he completed his pre-induction physical examination on 8 December 1967.  It shows his mental evaluation was retaken on 24 January 1968.  It shows he was inducted on        23 April 1968.  Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station, Los Angeles,   CA Special Orders Number 80, dated 23 April 1968, show he was inducted on     23 April 1968 under the name John L. S___.

5.  The applicant’s induction physical, dated 23 April 1968, shows he had a normal chest x-ray and a negative TB test.  It also shows his name as John Lee S___.

6.  Headquarters, U. S. Army Reception Station, Fort Ord, CA Special Orders Number 88, dated 26 April 1968, changed the applicant’s name from John Lee S___ to Johnnie Lee I___.  A DD Form 1343 (Notification of Change in Service Member’s Official Records), dated 22 July 1968, notified authorities that all his records would be changed to show his name as Johnnie Lee I___.  All documents dated after this date show his name as Johnnie Lee I___.  A few documents prepared prior to this date, such as his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) and induction physical, were changed to show his name as Johnnie Lee I___

7.  The applicant completed basic combat training.  Item 27 (Military Education) and item 38 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 20 show he completed       8 weeks of advanced individual training as a wireman at Fort Ord, CA.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 36K.

8.  The applicant was reassigned to Fort Carson, CO on or about 1 October 1968.  Item 38 of his DA Form 20 shows he remained at Fort Carson until          23 June 1969.  Orders, dated 26 May 1969, show the applicant was reassigned to the U. S. Army Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, CA with a will proceed date of 2 June 1969, a port call date of 1 July 1969, and 25 days delay enroute leave.  Orders, dated 2 June 1969, amended those assignment orders  to show a will proceed date of 15 June 1969, a report date of 19 July 1969, and   30 days delay enroute leave.  Item 31 (Foreign Service) of his DA Form            20 shows he departed the States on 29 July 1969.

9.  Headquarters, U. S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Transient Detachment Special Orders 214, dated 2 August 1969, assigned the applicant to the 23d Adjutant General Replacement Detachment.  These orders also indicate he arrived in Vietnam on 31 July 1969.  Item 38 of his DA Form 20 shows he was assigned to HHC, 196th Infantry Brigade on 9 August 1969.  It also shows he performed duties as a 36K20 wireman from 9 August through 29 November 1969 and as a 36K20 switchboard operator as of 30 November 1969.

10.  Headquarters, Americal Division General Orders Number 1935, dated          2 March 1970, awarded the applicant the ARCOM for meritorious service.  

11.  Headquarters, Americal Division Special Orders Number 81, dated 22 March 1970, reassigned the applicant to the USARV Returnee Detachment with a report date to the U. S. Army Transfer Station, Fort Lewis, WA of 27 March 1970.  Item 38 of his DA Form 20 shows he departed Vietnam on 26 March 1970.  He was credited with participation in two campaigns.

12.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 30 March 1970, in the rank of Specialist Four, E-4, after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 8 days of creditable active service with no lost time.  

13.  Item 25 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 contains the entry, “NONE.”  Item     24 shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with device 1960, the ARCOM, the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge (M-14), and one overseas service bar.  Item 10c shows he was inducted on 23 April 1968.  Item 17c contains the entry, “NA.”  Item 30 shows he served in Vietnam from 29 July 1969 through 30 March 1970.
14.  There is no entry on the applicant’s DD Form 214 to indicate he separated on temporary records.  There is no other indication in his records (such as a temporary DA Form 20) to indicate his records were ever lost.

15.  The applicant’s records contain no derogatory information.  His DA Form       20 shows his conduct and efficiency were rated as “excellent” throughout his service.

16.  The applicant provided an SF 600.  An entry, dated 25 December 1969, indicates that a trip flare exploded in his hand.  He annotated this document with the entry, “While setting a primer recieved (sic) enemy fire causing it to trigger    & go off in my hand.”

17.  The applicant provided one page of his SF 88, dated 30 March 1970.  He annotated this form, “What does See #73 refer to?  I don’t know but I bet it is a film.”  Item 73 on the SF 88 was the section where the applicant would have entered a brief statement about the state of his health since his last examination and the examiner would have entered notes on the examination as necessary.  Significant medical events, such as major illnesses or injuries, and any illness or injury since the last in-service medical examination would also have been entered.  

18.  The applicant provided an SF 5195, dated 30 March 1970.  This document indicated that x-rays taken of the applicant’s lungs revealed findings compatible with TB, but the activity of the TB was unable to be determined without old films.  The applicant annotated this document, “Injury do (sic) to mortar round going off which I recieved (sic) P.H. for.  Go look at my T.B. Test!  Shot records.”

19.  The applicant provided an ARCOM citation pertaining to Sergeant Howard F. J___, social security number 491-__-____, for meritorious service for the period January 1969 to December 1969.  He provided a BSM citation pertaining to Corporal Stephen D. H___, social security number 462-__-____,for meritorious service for the period January 1970 to December 1970.  He provided a U. S. Army Southern European Task Force Citation for Award of the Army Commendation Medal pertaining to Specialist Five Randall E. H___.  None of these documents are currently filed in the applicant’s records.  The applicant’s social security number is 557-__-____.

20.  The applicant provided page 2 of a DVA Rating Decision.  This document states in part, “The service medical records were reviewed...The veteran was never treated for, or diagnosed with, any combat wound to the lung…He denies receiving any injury during active duty….”

21.  The applicant is not listed on the Vietnam Casualty Roster under either the name I___ or the name S___.

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states 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 a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  When contemplating an award of the Purple Heart, the key issue commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury.  The fact the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 authorizes award of a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation.  Authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign or service medal, including the Vietnam Service Medal.

24.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This document shows that, at the time of the applicant's assignment to HHC, 196th Infantry Brigade, it was cited for award of the Valorous Unit Award for the period 11 through 31 August 1969 by Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 43, dated 1972.

25.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows that, at the time of the applicant's assignment to HHC, 196th Infantry Brigade, it was cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period    24 August through 31 December 1969 by DAGO Number 6, dated 1974.

26.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  At the time, a Soldier’s conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as “excellent” for the entire period of qualifying service. 

27.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  The version in effect at the time stated that installation training 

courses, military correspondence courses, and off-duty courses the enlisted person completed successfully during the period covered by the DD Form       214 being prepared would b entered in item 25.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant separated on temporary records or that his records were ever lost.  There is no evidence of record to show that his name change, made days after he was inducted, ever affected the maintenance of his military records.  

2.  The applicant contended that when he requested his records he was provided an ARCOM citation, a BSM citation, and a U. S. Army Southern European Task Force Citation for Award of the Army Commendation Medal, all pertaining to individual other than himself.  None of these documents is currently filed in his records.  He requested that his name be entered on the ARCOM citation and the BSM citation in lieu of the names now on those documents.  It appears his contention is that these orders actually pertain to him.  However, neither the names and ranks (Sergeant J___ and Corporal H___), nor the social security numbers, nor the dates of service listed on these documents give any indication that they should have issued in the name of the applicant.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to show it would be in the interest of justice to change the names on these citations to reflect the applicant’s name.

3.  The applicant requested award of the Purple Heart.  He provided an SF 600 with an entry, dated 25 December 1969, which indicates that a trip flare exploded in his hand as supporting evidence.  He annotated this document with the entry, “While setting a primer recieved (sic) enemy fire causing it to trigger & go off in my hand.”  There is no evidence of record to corroborate his explanation of how the injury was incurred.  Even if the injury occurred under the circumstances as he described, unless there is evidence to show that the enemy fire itself hit the primer (rather than the sudden fire causing him to reflexively trigger the primer), it appears his commander may have made a decision that the enemy did not cause the injury to a degree sufficient to warrant award of the Purple Heart.

4.  The applicant also contended that he has shrapnel inside his lung tissue, caused when a mortar round exploded near him.  He provided an SF 5195, dated 30 March 1970, which indicates x-rays taken of his lungs revealed findings compatible with TB.  The applicant contended that since his induction physical failed to reveal his having TB the March 1970 x-rays were indicative of the injury he received when shrapnel from the mortar round hit him.  

5.  The rest of the applicant’s service medical records are not available; however, it appears they were available to the DVA.  The DVA noted that it reviewed his service medical records and they indicated that he was never treated for, or diagnosed with, any combat wound to the lung and that he denied (presumably on his separation physical) receiving any injury during active duty.  In addition, TB is pandemic worldwide, especially in poverty-stricken countries with poor health services.  Vietnam certainly qualified in that regard.  The applicant could very well not have had TB when he was inducted but was infected in Vietnam.  

6.  There is insufficient evidence on which to base awarding the applicant the Purple Heart 

7.  The applicant was credited with participation in two campaigns.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be amended to show he is eligible to wear the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars.

8.  The applicant was assigned to a unit during a period of time that unit was awarded the Valorous Unit Award and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.  His DD Form 214 should be amended to add these two unit awards.

9.  The applicant was honorably separated after completing almost 24 months of service with no time lost.  His records contain no derogatory information and his conduct and efficient were rated as “excellent” throughout his service.  Therefore, it appears he met the eligibility criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

10.  There is no error in item 10c of the applicant’s DD Form 214.  It is acknowledged that he took his pre-induction physical examination on                  8 December 1967; however, his DD Form 47 and his induction orders show he was not actually inducted into the Army until 23 April 1968.  

11.  There is no error in item 17c of the applicant’s DD Form 214.  Item 17 (and subitems 17a, 17b, and 17c) are meant to reflect the date of entry for a Soldier who entered his or her current active service other than by induction.  Since the applicant was inducted, item 17c correctly contains the entry, “NA.”  

12.  The applicant requested that item 30 of his DD Form 214 be corrected to show he served in Vietnam from 1 November 1968 through 30 March 1970 rather than the dates 29 July 1969 to 30 March 1970 that it currently shows.  However, his DA Form 20, the orders reassigning him from Fort Carson, and the orders assigning him to Vietnam show he did not arrive in Vietnam until July/August 1969.  One set of orders specifically notes that he arrived in Vietnam on 31 July 1969.  The orders reassigning him from Vietnam showed he had a report date to Fort Lewis of 27 March 1970, and his DA Form 20 showed he departed Vietnam on 26 March 1970.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 appears to show that he is being credited with a few more days in Vietnam than he actually served.  

13.  The evidence of record shows the applicant completed 8 weeks of advanced individual training as a wireman at Fort Ord, CA.  This military course should be added to item 25 of his DD Form 214.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

__wdp___  __mjf___  __sjs___  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 first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 23 April 1968 through 30 March 1970;

     b.  amending item 24 of his DD Form 214 to add the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Valorous Unit Award, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and to show he is eligible to wear two bronze service stars on his already-awarded Vietnam Service Medal; and

     c.  amending item 25 of his DD For 214 to show he completed the 8-week Wireman course in 1968. 

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 changing the names on the provided ARCOM citation and BSM citation to reflect his name; award of the Purple Heart; changing item 10c on his DD Form 214 to show he was inducted 

on 8 December 1967; changing item 17c of his DD Form 214 to show he entered active duty on 23 April 1968; and changing item 30 of his DD Form 214 to show he served in Vietnam from 1 November 1968 through 30 March 1970.




__William D. Powers___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070010031
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071211
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.
107.0015
2.
107.00
3.
100.00
4.

5.

6.