IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  31 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110024418 


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, in effect, award of the Purple Heart (PH) and the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).

2.  The applicant states that due to active firefighting while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 2 September 1966 to 18 March 1967, heavy explosions and continuous blasts caused his right ear to bleed and the right side of his head to swell.   He was evacuated to Japan for treatment, and then sent to Fort Lewis, Washington, for additional medical care.  He believes he has earned the PH and requests the Board be fair and find in his favor.

3.  The applicant provides two copies of BIRLS (Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem) Data statements, dated 1 August 1985.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 August 1959 and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 112 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman).  He reenlisted on 21 August 1961, and was trained in and awarded MOS 11C (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman).

3.  On 14 June 1962, summary court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 28 May 1962 through 31 May 1962.  

4.  On 4 March 1963, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for AWOL from 4 March 1963 to 4 March 1963.

5.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he earned the following awards during these periods of active duty service:

* National Defense Service Medal (NDSM)
* Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) 
* RVN Campaign Medal (RVNCM) with 1960 Device
* Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB)
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar 
* Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar 
* One Overseas Service Bar

6.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Record is void of orders or documents indicating he was wounded in action in the RVN.  It is also void of medical treatment records indicating he was ever treated for a combat-related wound.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) is blank, and the PH and the AGCM are not included in the list of earned awards in item 41 (Awards and Decorations).

7.  Section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service) of his DA Form 24 (Service Record) shows he received “fair” to "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his military service.   

8.  A DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance for Awards), dated 5 September 1985, issued by the Reserve Component and Personnel Administration Center shows award of the AGCM.  However, there are no orders in his personnel records authorizing the award.
9.  The applicant's name is not listed on the Army Vietnam Casualty Roster.  

10.  Review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS), an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders for the PH or the AGCM pertaining to the applicant.

11.  The BIRLS Data statements that the applicant provided reflect he is an Army veteran who transferred from Portland.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 2-8 contains guidance on the PH.  It states the PH is awarded to members wounded in action.  It also states in order to award the PH there must be evidence of the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the wound required treatment by medical personnel, and a record of the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.

13.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, 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; for first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 2 March 1946; 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.  The enlisted person must have had all "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings.  There must have been no convictions by a court-martial.  However, there was no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander made a positive recommendation for its award and until the awarding authority announced the award in general orders.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to be awarded the PH based on wounds received in the RVN has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  By regulation, in order to support award of the PH the member must have been wounded in action and there must be evidence the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the wound must have required medical treatment by medical personnel, and this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

3.  Item 40 of the applicant’s DA Form 20 is blank, and the PH is not included in the list of earned awards in item 41.  Further, there are no documents in the applicant's military records that indicate he was ever treated for a combat-related wound by medical personnel during his tour in the RVN, nor does his name appear in ADCARS.  Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to grant the requested relief.

4.  The applicant's request to be awarded the AGCM has been carefully considered.  His honorable service to our Nation is not in question.  However, his record is void of any recommendation for and/or orders that show he was recommended for or awarded the AGCM.  Additionally, he received a summary court-martial and NJP for AWOL.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ____X____  ____X____  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.




      ______ _   __X_____   ___
               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)                                         AR20110024418



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110024418



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1