2.  The applicant requests award of the Combat Medical Badge (CMB), Purple Heart (PH), Kuwait Liberation Medal (KLM), Humanitarian Service Medal (HSM) (Kuwait Reconstruction Effort), Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM), Meritorious Unit Citation (MUC), Armed Forces Reserve Medal (AFRM) 10-year device, “M” (mobilization) device for the Armed Forces Reserve Medal and the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (ARCAM), and the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He also states that his current medical condition warrants a medical retirement.

3.  The applicant’s military records show he enlisted in the Army National Guard on 20 December 1973.  His National Guard unit was ordered to active duty on  17 November 1990 for deployment to Operation Desert Shield/Storm.  He arrived in Saudi Arabia on 6 January 1991.  He was assigned/attached to the 660th Transportation Company providing support to the 369th Transportation Battalion and the 3d Battalion, 73d Armor, 82d Airborne Division as a medic/combat medic.  

4.  He was medically evacuated on 12 April 1991 for evaluation of diabetes, hypertension and obesity.  On 13 November 1991, a medical evaluation board (MEB) diagnosed the applicant with diabetes mellitus, insulin dependent; polyneuropathies, left upper extremity; carpal tunnel syndrome; degenerative joint disease; and spinal stenosis, congenital.  The applicant did not agree with the findings, stating that chronic pancreatitis should be added.  On 25 November 1991, a medical review determined that there was mild to moderate fatty replacement of the liver.  This was readily consistent with chronic pancreatitis but was not a diagnostic of it.  Presence or absence of chronic pancreatitis should have no affect on the disposition of the medical board.

5.  On 14 February 1992, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant unfit for duty by reason of his having diabetes mellitus, insulin dependent (existed prior to entry on service and not service aggravated) at a disability rating of zero percent and spinal stenosis (congenital but possibly aggravated due to trauma related to military duties) at a disability rating of 10 percent.  The other diagnoses were found to be not unfitting.  The PEB recommended separation with severance pay.

6.  The applicant did not concur and demanded a formal hearing but on            26 March 1992 he waived his right to a formal hearing.

7.  The applicant was separated on 5 May 1992.  He had completed a total of     2 years, 4 months and 24 days of creditable active service (1 year, 5 months and 26 days on this period of active duty) and a total of 15 years, 11 months and     27 days of inactive service..

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Combat Medical Badge could be awarded, subsequent to 16 January 1991, to Medical Department personnel assigned or attached to armor and ground cavalry units of brigade or smaller size, in addition to infantry elements, who satisfactorily perform medical duties while the unit is engaged in actual ground combat, provided they are personally present and under fire.  The award was established to recognize medical aidmen who shared the same hazards and hardships of ground combat on a daily basis with the infantry soldier.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action, to include injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological or nuclear agents.

10.  It also provides that the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded for each qualifying 3 year period of continuous enlisted active military service.  The first award only may be awarded, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, for a period of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.

11.  The regulation authorizes the AFRM for a 10 year period of qualifying reserve component service and a 10-year device for each succeeding 10-year period.

12.  Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 verifies that he worked as a combat medic.

2.  The KLM is shown on his DD Form 214; however, he is entitled to two awards of the KLM – KLM (Kuwait) and KLM (Saudi Arabia).

3.  The inclusive dates for the HSM for the Kuwait Reconstruction Effort are      26 February - 31 December 1991.  A by-name listing of eligible participants was forwarded to the recommending command.  Awards Branch, Total Army Personnel Command could not locate the applicant’s name nor any of the units to which he was assigned on the list.

4.  The “M” device is not authorized for the ARCAM.

5.  The applicant is not authorized the 10-year device for the AFRM.  He completed only 8 ½ years of his second qualifying period of service.

6.  The applicant includes documentation to show that Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment (HHD), 369th Transportation Battalion was awarded the MUC during the period 29 December 1990 - 30 June 1991.  However, he supplies no evidence that he was assigned or attached to HHD, only that he was in the 660th Transportation Company providing support to the 369th Transportation Battalion.  Awards Branch, Total Army Personnel Command could find no record of unit awards for either the 3d Battalion, 73d Armor or the 660th Transportation Company.

7.  The applicant does not appear to be eligible for award of the Purple Heart.  He was medically evacuated from Saudi Arabia for symptoms relating to his diabetes.  Neither his MEB nor his PEB diagnosed him with his current dermatological complaints; his rebuttals did not address this condition, either.  A medical determination by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice in the Army rating.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit for medical conditions it has determined.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its findings or rating.

8.  The applicant’s supervisor recommended him for award of the ARCOM.  The second page of the DA Form 638-1 is not available, but it appears to be a valid recommendation that apparently got lost in the awards process.

9.  The applicant meets regulatory eligibility requirements for award of the “M” device for the AFRM and for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

10.  In view of the foregoing, it would be just and proper to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual is entitled to award of the Combat Medical Badge, the Army Commendation Medal, the “M” device for the Armed Forces Reserve Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                                                         
    CHAIRPERSON