RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:     14 February 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050007458


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Luis Almodova                 |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert W. Soniak              |     |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, reconsideration for award of the
Combat Medical Badge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his request is based on the fact
he was a combat medic and received the Bronze Star Medal for heroism while
serving as a combat medic.  He adds that Government Bill G-9-03 was passed
awarding the Combat Medical Badge but it was never awarded.

3.  The applicant followed up his application for reconsideration, dated
10 May 2005 with a letter, dated 18 July 2005, intended to provide
additional information and new argument.  In this letter, the applicant
stated that he indeed understood the guidelines set forth and the need to
enforce those guidelines, but perhaps he was misinformed about his
eligibility.  Government Bill G-9-03 (a copy of which the applicant did
not provide), he adds, was sponsored by a Member of Congress
from Pennsylvania, and in fact authorizes award of the Combat Medical
Badge to members of crews that flew on medical evacuation missions in
Vietnam.  The applicant adds that his unit, the 54th Medical Detachment,
was in direct support of the Americal Division in I Corps, in Vietnam.

4.  The applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the
United States, Report of Transfer or Discharge, and a copy of two general
orders awarding him the Bronze Star Medal, with "V" Device; and the Bronze
Star Medal, with "V" Device, and with oak leaf cluster, in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20040007981, on 21 June 2005.

2.  The above proceedings showed the applicant was inducted into the Army
of the United States on 16 November 1966.  He served on active duty for
1 year, 10 months, and 3 days, and was honorably released from active
duty on 18 September 1968, in the rank and pay grade, Specialist Four, E-
4.

3.  The DD Form 214 the applicant was provided on the day he was released
from active duty shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal;
the Vietnam Service Medal; the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal; the
Bronze Star Medal; the Air Medal; the Sharpshooter Marksmanship
Qualification Badge, with Rifle Bar (M-14 Rifle); and two overseas service
bars.

4.  After reviewing the evidence and the applicant's personnel records, the
Board concluded that the applicant was entitled to awards in addition to
those shown on his DD Form 214.  The Board recommended the applicant be
awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation; the Republic of Vietnam
Gallantry Cross, with Palm, Unit Citation; and four bronze service stars,
to be affixed to his Vietnam Service Medal to denote his campaign
participation credit.  The Board also noted the applicant's DD Form 214 did
not accurately show he had earned the Bronze Star Medal, with "V" Device,
and that he had earned the Air Medal, 11th Award.

5.  The applicant has submitted an additional order that must be considered
at this time.  The applicant submitted a copy of General Orders 677,
published by Headquarters, 44th Medical Brigade, on 25 July 1968, awarding
him the Bronze Star Medal, with "V" Device, for heroism in connection with
military operations against a hostile force on 14 April 1968.  This general
order was not available at the time the applicant's request was originally
considered.

6.  In the Record of Proceedings, Paragraph 6, a reference was made to
General Orders Number 777, published by the 44th Medical Brigade, on 6
September 1968.  In this paragraph, it was incorrectly stated the applicant
had been awarded the Bronze Star Medal, with "V" Device, for heroism on 7
May 1968.  This entry should properly have reported the applicant had been
awarded the Bronze Star Medal, with "V" Device, and with oak leaf cluster.
This was the second such award earned by the applicant for heroism.

7.  On 3 February 2006, a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, was
prepared by the Army Review Boards Support Agency, St. Louis.  The Vietnam
Service Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, and the Air Medal were deleted from
the applicant's DD Form 214, dated 18 September 1968.  The Meritorious
Unit Commendation; the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, with Palm,
Unit Citation; the Vietnam Service Medal, with four bronze service stars;
the Bronze Star Medal, with one oak leaf cluster and with "V" Device; the
Air Medal, with Numeral 11; and the Army Aviation Badge were added to the
applicant's DD Form 214.

8.  Because of the direct impact on the eligibility for award of the Combat
Medical Badge, it is imperative that it be repeated that while the
applicant served in Vietnam, he was assigned to the 54th Medical
Detachment, 2nd Surgical Hospital, a subordinate unit of the 44th Medical
Brigade.

9.  During the initial consideration of the applicant's request, the
Board determined that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of a probable error or injustice and therefore further
determined that the overall merits of the case were insufficient as a
basis for correction of the applicant's record.  He was denied award of
the Combat Medical Badge.  In the Discussion and Conclusions section of
the Proceedings, specifically Paragraph 1, it stated that, by regulation,
in order to qualify for the Combat Medical Badge, a medic must be
assigned to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size,
or to a medical unit of company or smaller size, organic to an infantry
unit of brigade or smaller size, during any period the infantry unit is
engaged in actual ground combat, provided they are personally present and
under fire during such ground combat (emphasis added).

10.  A search of policy letters, Army Human Resources Command (AHRC)
Awards Branch messages, and other media, were searched for a revision of
the criteria and for retroactive authority for award of the Combat
Medical Badge to Soldiers who had similar assignment and utilization
circumstance that the applicant experienced.  A message from the
Commander, Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Date and Time Group 150824Z,
October 2003, Subject:  Clarification of Criteria for Award of the Combat
Medical Badge (CMB), which was distributed Army-wide, was found.  In
pertinent part, this message specifically stated,

      "The Combat Medical Badge was created as a "companion" badge to the
   Combat Infantryman Badge with criteria for its award intended
   to parallel that of the Combat Infantryman Badge.  It was designed to
   provide recognition to the field medic who accompanies the infantryman
   into battle and shares with him the experiences unique to the infantry
   in combat.  There was never any intention to award the Combat Medical
   Badge to all medical personnel who serve in a combat zone or imminent
   danger area, that is, a division-level medical company supporting a
   maneuver brigade."


   The message continues, "Medical personnel serving in division-level
   medical companies, ground ambulance and medical clearing companies,
   mobile-army surgical hospital (mash), combat-support hospital (csh), and
   field hospitals, and aero-medical evacuation units are not, repeat, are
   not, eligible for the combat medical badge.  These provisions also
   include Soldiers attached to brigade combat teams."


A copy of Government Bill G-9-03, which the applicant referred to, was not
found by the Board for review.

11.  The errors that were discovered and the corrections deemed required by
the Board were determined to be administrative matter that could be
corrected by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis,
Missouri.  A DD Form 215 was prepared and distributed on 3 February 2006
thus executing the Board's instructions for the correction of the
applicant's record.

12.  A further review of the applicant's personnel records showed, in
Item 38 (Record of Assignments), of the applicant's DA Form 20, Enlisted
Qualification Record, that the applicant consistently received
"excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service.  There
is no evidence of any breach of good order or discipline in his service
personnel record that would preclude award of the Good Conduct Medal.
There is no evidence in the applicant's service record that he was ever
denied award of the Good Conduct Medal by his commanders

13.  AR 672-5-1, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation
provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who
distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a
qualifying 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.  Although there is no
automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be
justified.  To be eligible for award of the Good Conduct Medal, soldiers
must meet all of the following criteria:  all conduct (character) and
efficiency ratings must be recorded as "Excellent" except that ratings of
"Unknown" for portions of the period under consideration are not
disqualifying.  Service school efficiency ratings based upon academic
proficiency of at least "Good" rendered subsequent to 22 November 1955 are
not disqualifying.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant served in Vietnam, he was assigned to the 54th
Medical Detachment, 2nd Surgical Hospital, a subordinate unit of the 44th
Medical Brigade.

2.  While the applicant met all other regulatory requirements for award of
the Combat Medical Badge, except for being assigned or attached to an
infantry unit, there is no evidence, and the applicant has provided none,
to show he was assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade,
regimental, or smaller size, or to a medical unit of company or smaller
size, organic to an infantry unit of brigade or smaller size, and he
accompanied the infantryman into battle and shared with him the experiences
unique to the infantry in combat while he served in Vietnam.

3.  A message, policy letter, or another form of communication to confirm
the applicant's allegation that the criteria for award of the Combat
Medical Badge was changed and applied retroactively to enable award of the
Combat Medical Badge to medical personnel involved in medical evacuation
duties in Vietnam was not found nor was it provided by the applicant.

4.  A message from the Commander, PERSCOM which was distributed to clarify
the criteria for award of the Combat Medical Badge was found.  In pertinent
part, this message specifically stated, contrary to the applicant's
assertions, that medical personnel serving in division-level medical
companies, ground ambulance and medical clearing companies, mobile-army
surgical hospitals (mash), combat-support hospitals (csh), and field
hospitals, and aero-medical evacuation units were not eligible for award of
the combat medical badge.

5.  Based on the evidence, the specific criteria for award of the Combat
Medical Badge, and the provisions of the applicable regulation, the
applicant is therefore not eligible for award of the Combat Medical Badge
and to have it added to his DD Form 214.

6.  The evidence shows that an appropriate correction was made to the
applicant's DD Form 214, on 3 February 2006, to show the applicant was
awarded the Bronze Star Medal, with "V" Device, and with oak leaf cluster.

7.  The applicant had "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout
his time in the Army.  There is no evidence of indiscipline while he served
on active duty.  The applicant was not awarded the Good Conduct Medal, it
appears, more as a result of administrative oversight rather than something
the applicant did to disqualify himself from this award.  He is therefore
eligible for award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 16 November
1966 through 18 September 1968 and to have this award added to his DD Form
214.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__jpl ___  _D______  ___RwS _  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR20040007981
dated 21 June 2005.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department
of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding
the applicant the Good Conduct Medal for the period 16 November 1966
through 18 September 1968 and adding this award to his DD Form 214.

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 Combat Medical Badge to the applicant and its addition to his
DD Form 214.




            ___Jennifer L. Prater______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007458                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060214                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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