IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        02 December 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080008948 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM).  He also requests that the date of rank (DOR) in item 6 of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be added.

2.  The applicant states that he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from approximately June 1969 – January 1970.  He also contends that he has been dealing with heavy medications and schizophrenia since his discharge and that he is rated 100 percent service-connected disabled by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

3.  The applicant provides supporting statements from his battalion commander and a copy of a story entitled "Engineer Hill:  The Quarry."

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 evidence of record shows that the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 16 September 1964.  After serving only 1 month and 7 days, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Unsuitability) by reason of unsuitability – character and behavior disorder.  He was diagnosed with an inadequate personality, chronic, severe, manifested by inability to adapt to military training, substandard intelligence, and moderately impaired insight and judgment.

3.  On 11 August 1967, the Army Discharge Review Board responded to the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.  He was tendered an offer of an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-212 (Unfitness and Unsuitability), by reason of unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder.  The applicant accepted the offer, and he was issued a new DD Form 214 showing he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 on 22 October 1964.

4.  The applicant was again inducted into the Army of the United States on 25 September 1968.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty 12A (Pioneer).  On 27 January 1969, the applicant's unit commander requested that the applicant be separated from the Army as expeditiously as possible because it was reported that the applicant was discharged in 1964 as unsuitable for military service, although there was no evidence that the applicant concealed his previous service when he was inducted.

5.  On 25 March 1969, the applicant's separation was disapproved and his induction was determined not to be erroneous because the Selective Service System had all the pertinent facts regarding the applicant's prior service.  The disapproval for discharge for other reasons could be considered if appropriate.

6.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that on 9 July 1969 he was reassigned to the RVN.  He served in the RVN from 9 July 1969 through 8 January 1970.  He was assigned to Company B, 20th Engineer Battalion (Combat).

7.  On 26 July 1969, the applicant underwent a mental health examination.  The examiner found that he was inept, overly anxious, a problem to his unit, and was diagnosed with an emotionally unstable personality.  He recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability due to a character and behavior disorder (now referred to as personality disorder).

8.  On 30 September 1969, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 due to unsuitability.  He indicated that he was recommending separation because the applicant was incapable of adjusting to or coping with a military environment in the RVN.  He was overly anxious and inept.  During the 2 months he was in the unit he got in bed with a sleeping man, he locked and loaded his M-14 rifle in the barracks in violation of standing orders and then became so emotional it was necessary to physically disarm him and give him a sedative, and he continually prowled the company area late at night in a highly agitated and disoriented state. He was incapable of performing the most menial tasks without constant personal supervision.  He was assigned to quarters at the Engineer Hill dispensary where his actions could be more closely monitored and because his actions continually rendered him subject to criticism from his peers and corrective action from his superiors.  He was recommended for a general under honorable conditions discharge although there was no record of misconduct evidence of any punitive action taken against him for misconduct.

9.  On 12 January 1970, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 by reason of unsuitability.  His service was characterized as honorable and he was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 18 days of military service.

10.  The applicant's DA Form 20 shows his DOR to private first class/E-3 as 17 June 1969.

11.  The applicant provided 2 letters from his former battalion commander in the RVN, one undated and the other dated 10 August 1970.  The battalion commander indicated that during the period 7 July 1969 – 10 January 1970 the applicant was under his command as a member of the 20th Engineer Battalion (Combat).  He states the applicant was given a number of special tasks by his company commander, all to be performed with minimum supervision and assistance.  He satisfied all these assignments in an outstanding manner.  He also performed duties which included perimeter guard in bunkers and towers and roving patrol.

12.  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 VSM or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and were evacuated prior to completing 6 months of service due to wounds resulting from hostile action were entitled to award of the Vietnam Campaign Medal.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, for award of the VSM.  This medal is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973.  Qualifying service included attachment to or assignment for 1 or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting military operations.

14.  Appendix B of Army Regulation 600-8-22 lists all approved Army campaigns including campaigns of the Vietnam War.  This same regulation states that a bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the VSM for participation in each campaign.

15.  The applicant's records indicate he participated in two campaigns, the Vietnam Summer-Fall 1969 and the Vietnam Winter-Spring 1970 campaigns.

16.  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 a unit to which the applicant was assigned (20th Engineer Battalion) was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) for the period 1 June 1968 – 31 December 1969 by Department of the Army General Orders Number 48, dated 1971.

17.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows the applicant's unit received the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation based on Department of the Army General Orders Number 8, dated 1974.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Qualifying service for the Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) required assignment in Vietnam for 6 months or more.  The applicant served in Vietnam for 5 months and 29 days.  Therefore, he is not entitled to this award.

2.  The applicant had qualifying service for award of the VSM.  The applicant’s record also shows he served in Vietnam during two campaigns; therefore, he is entitled to wear two bronze service stars on his VSM.

3.  General Orders authorized the applicant’s unit the award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation during his tenure of assignment which is not shown on his DD Form 214.  Therefore, he is entitled to have his records corrected to show this foreign unit award.

4.  The applicant's unit was awarded the MUC for the period 13 June 1968 – 
31 December 1969.  Therefore, he is entitled to have his records corrected to show this unit award.

5.  The applicant's DOR to private first class was 17 June 1969 which is not shown on his DD Form 214.  Therefore, he is entitled to have his record corrected to show his DOR.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X_____  __X______  ___X_____  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.  adding the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, the VSM with 2 bronze service stars, and the MUC to his DD Form 214 to show these awards; and

	b.  correcting item 6 of the applicant's DD Form 214 to read "17 June 1969."

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 Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).



      __________XXX_______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008948



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080008948



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1