MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 July 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036640

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be awarded the Purple Heart (PH), the Air Medal (AM) and that he be advanced on the Retired List to the pay grade of E-9.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that on or about 29 September 1951 he received a shrapnel wound to the right knee cap and was treated by a medic the following day for his wound.  He further states that he served two tours in Vietnam and was not credited with enough combat air missions during each tour to be awarded the AM.  However, when the total of missions is combined there are sufficient missions to qualify for the award.  He also states that he successfully served in an E-9 position for a period of a month while in Vietnam and for 8 months while assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas and therefore should be advanced on the Retired List to that grade.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted on 8 March 1951 and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  His record of assignments show that he served in a sergeant major position during the period of 1 December 1967 to 7 January 1968 while serving in Vietnam in the pay grade of E-7.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-8 on 23 June 1969.

On 19 October 1967 he was awarded the Aircraft Crewman Badge as an observer/non-crewmember based on the commander’s certification that he had participated in at least 15 combat missions while serving as an observer engaged in psychological operations missions.  There is no indication in the available records to show that he was ever recommended for award of the AM.  However, his records also show that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Army Commendation Medal for his meritorious service in Vietnam.

The applicant underwent a medical and physical examination on 26 November 1972 for the purpose of retirement.  The only indication in that examination regarding his right knee was that he dislocated it in 1961 while at Fort Meade, Maryland.  Further examination of his records failed to reveal any treatment for a shrapnel wound of any kind.

On 31 March 1973 the applicant was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired) in the pay grade of E-8 effective 1 April 1973.  He had served 22 years and 23 days of total active service.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the PH is awarded for a wound/injury sustained as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound/injury was a result of hostile action, that the wound/injury must have required treatment by a medical officer, and that the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.
That regulation also prescribes the criteria for award of the AM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the AM may be awarded to any person who, while serving with the Army, distinguishes himself by meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.  Awards for meritorious service may be made for sustained distinction in the performance of duties involving regular and frequent participation in aerial flight for a period of at least 6 months.  In this regard, accumulation of a specified number of hours and missions will not serve as rthe basis for award of the AM.  Awards will not be made to individuals who use air transportation solely for the purpose of moving from point to point in a combat zone.

Title 10, United States Code, provides, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel may be advanced in grade to the highest grade satisfactorily held, as determined by the Secretary of the Army, upon completing 30 years of service.  This service may consist of combined active service and service in the USAR Control Group (Retired).

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations,  it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  In order to be advanced to a higher grade on the Retired List, the applicant must have at some time been properly advanced to and satisfactorily served in a higher grade prior to his being placed on the Retired List.  The applicant has not submitted evidence with his application, and the evidence of record does not contain any evidence to show that he was properly promoted to a higher grade than he held at the time of retirement.  Therefore, there is no basis to promote him to a higher grade or to advance him on the Retired List.

3. The evidence of record fails to show that the applicant was wounded/injured as a result of enemy action or that he was ever recommended for or awarded the AM; therefore, there is no basis for the Board to award him the PH or AM at this time.

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

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___gp___  __mvt___  ___eb___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036640	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/07/18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900/adv on ret list	
2.  61	107.0015/ph	
3.  64	107.0018/am	
4.		
5.		
6.