PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            27 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037236

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests award of the Good Conduct Medal and the Purple Heart.  The applicant also requests, in effect, that a Letter of Appreciation, dated 9 December 1969, be endorsed by the commanding officer.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was wounded by a land mine explosion in Vietnam when pieces of metal hit his right foot.  He contends that he saw the captain sign his Letter of Appreciation and that his copy is not signed.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation, a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge), three photographs of a right foot and one photograph of various medals and decorations. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 30 December 1966 for a period of 3 years.  He served as a light weapons infantryman in Vietnam from 29 June 1967 through 28 June 1968 and was honorably discharged on 
15 December 1969.

5.  The applicant’s DD Form 214, which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Good Conduct Medal or the Purple Heart as authorized awards.

6.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s personnel records which shows he was recommended for or received the first award of the Good Conduct Medal.  There also is no indication in the available records that he was disqualified from receiving this award.  There is no indication of indiscipline or other adverse action in the applicant’s records.

7.  There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Purple Heart.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s service personnel records that he was awarded the Purple Heart or was wounded as a result of hostile action.

8.  Evidence of record shows that on 9 September 1969 the applicant underwent a separation physical examination which makes no mention of any wounds sustained as a result of hostile action.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not reflect entitlement to the Purple Heart and item 40 (Wounds) on his DA Form 20 is blank. 

9.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains an unsigned carbon copy of a Letter of Appreciation, dated 9 December 1969. 

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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.  

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent pert, that acts or services which do not meet the criteria for decorations or the various authorized certificates may be recognized by written or oral expressions of commendation or appreciation.  The regulation also states that copies of each letter of commendation or appreciation will be distributed to the individual’s Military Personnel Records Jacket and OMPF per Army Regulation 600-8-104.   

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant is entitled to the first award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 30 December 1966 through 15 December 1969 based on completion of
3 years of qualifying active duty enlisted service.  Therefore, the applicant is entitled to correction of his military records to show this award.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was wounded by a land mine explosion in Vietnam when pieces of metal hit his right foot.  The Board also reviewed the photographs provided with his application.  However, there is no evidence of record available to the Board which shows the applicant was wounded or treated for as a result of hostile action in Vietnam. 

3.  The applicant signed his DD Form 214 attesting to the fact he was not entitled to the Purple Heart.

4.  The preponderance of evidence in this case shows the applicant was not wounded or otherwise entitled to the Purple Heart.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his military records to show this award. 

5.  The applicant received a Letter of Appreciation, dated 9 December 1969, which was properly filed in his OMPF based on regulation in effect at the time.  Although the applicant contends that his Letter of Appreciation is unsigned, this agency does not have authority to sign the unit commander’s signature.  However, as a courtesy we have annotated a copy of this document as an official copy and provided it to the applicant.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only 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 concerned was awarded the first award of the Good Conduct Medal for the period 30 December 1966 through 
15 December 1969. 

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

BOARD VOTE:  

MDM____  WTM___  CLG____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Mark D. Manning_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037236	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000627	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19691215	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200   	
DISCHARGE REASON	Expiration term of service	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0056	
2.	107.0015	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.