DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-51000RG

Docket No: 6816-07
17 October 2008

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 16 October 2008. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of
your application, together with all material submitted in support
thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations
and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps dated 2 June 2008,
a copy of which is attached.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the advisory opinion.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

   
  

 

Sincerely, ?
W. DEAN PF

 

Executive Dirac

 

Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103

IN REPLY REFER TO:

1650
MMMA-3
2 Jun 08

 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS ,

Subj: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION IN THE CASE OF FORMER

    

Enel: Locating Information

  
  

1. A review o Siig aes = official military record, the records
of this Headquarters, those of the Navy Department Board of Decorations
and Medals, and those of the Fleet Marine Force, Pacific, failed to
reveal any evidence that he was ever recommended for the award of the
Bronze Star Medal or any other personal decoration.

2. Policy established by the Secretary of the Navy requires that
award recommendations for the Bronze Star Medal must be submitted
within 3 years and approved within 5 years of the act or service as
well as delineates the process the Marine Corps and the Navy must
utilize in reviewing award recommendations submitted beyond these time

limits.

3. In order to consider Mu@QGMMMMiy for the award of the Bronze
Star Medal for his service in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam
Conflict, an award recommendation must be submitted in accordance with
10 U.S.C. § 1130. This federal statute provides for the consideration
of award recommendations that were not processed in a timely manner if
the former commanding officer or another officer who has personal
knowledge of the individual's service submits an administratively
complete award recommendation package to this Headquarters through a
member of Congress.

*
4. The administratively complete award recommendation package must
consist of the following: (1) a Personal Award Recommendation (OPNAV
1650/3) (which includes the specific date(s) (day, month, and year) of
Mr. Breidenbach's service) routed through his original chain of command
for their review, comments, and recommendations; if all of the members
of the chain of command are deceased, the recommending officer must

include a signed statement indicating this fact, (2) a detailed
summary of action since the recommended award will be considered based

solely on its merits, (3) a proposed award citation, and (4) two
notarized statements from eyewitnesses with their contact information.
The eyewitnesses, not to — submit
statements containing a complete description in their own words of his
acytions.
5. We realize that certain officers in his former chain of command may
no longer be living; however, this fact does not eliminate any of the
above mentioned requirements. Furthermore, aside from the legal and
administrative requirements, the burden of constructing an award
recommendation fairly and equitably decades after the fact can be
acutely challenging. Congress addressed this challenge during their
committee meetings concerning the enactment of 10 U.S.C. § 1130.
Specifically, the Services are not required to assemble any part of the
award recommendation package or conduct any research concerning these
awards. The requestor is obligated to conduct all of the research
including locating the service member's former commanding officer,
members of his former chain of command, and any eyewitnesses.

6. Consequently, until such time as an administratively completed
award recommendation package is submitted on behalf of xi __aaeieemieee
in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 1130, we can take no further action.
Moreover, an award recommendation package that does not contain all of
the above-mentioned requirements, regardless of its submission through
a member of Congress, will be returned without action.

7. During the period I? AMIN, served in the Marine Corps, the
Purple Heart was authorized for award to those who were wounded or

injured as a direct or indirect result of action by an enemy of the
United States or an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which
the Armed Forces of the United States was engaged. Verification of
entitlement must be made by official entries in the service or medical

records and/or casualty reports.

8. A review of his service and medical records revealed that he is
entitled to one Purple Heart Medal for wounds received in action
against the enemy on February 10, 1969, in Vietnam. Although the page
9 of his service record revealed that he received gunshot wounds to
the right side of his neck and right thigh on February 10, 1969, while
participating in Operations Dawson River South and Dewey Canyon, a
review of his records and the records of this Headquarters failed to
reveal that he received these wounds on two separate occasions.
Information from his medical record revealed that he received gunshot
wounds to his right deltoid area and to the left body of the mandible.

9. Since there is no indication in the records that he was ever
injured on two separate occasions as a direct or indirect result of
enemy action in Vietnam, regulations provide that he may obtain and
submit eyewitness statements. The eyewitness statements can be from
the medical officer who treated him in the field or two other
personnel who were present at the time he was injured. Statements
should contain the time, place, medical attention received, and

detailed
verification of the circumstances of the injury and the relation to
enemy action. A Notary Public must notarize these statements or they
will not be accepted. If he can provide the above information,
further consideration will be given to his request. The enclosure
provides information to assist you in locating Marines from his former

unit.

10. Point of contact at MMMA is Ms. D. McKinnon at (703) 784-9340.

E. M. HENSEN

Lieutenant Colonel, USMC

Asst Head, Military Awards Branch
Personnel Management Division

By direction of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps