MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001051639

	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:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 Combat Infantryman Badge, two Purple Hearts, and the air assault badge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was in heavy combat and under operational control (OPCON) of several different infantry units as a machine gunner and other combat duties as assigned, when he was wounded in combat on several occasions.  He further states that he possessed an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and was awarded decorations for heroism and valor while serving in Vietnam.  In support of his application he submits a letter from the former battalion surgeon and other documents from his records as well as some unit historical documents.  He also submits a photocopy of a DA Form 20 indicating in part 40 (wounds) that he received a cervical strain, lower lumbar strain and bruised heel on 1 July 1967 and a mild concussion, vertigo, abrasions and chipped molar on 3 July 1967. 

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

He enlisted on 7 June 1965 for a period of 3 years and training as a motor transport operator.  He completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 23 October 1965 for duty as a light vehicle driver (64A10) in a Hawk Missile battery.  On 8 March 1966 he was awarded a primary military occupational specialty (MOS) of 16D (Hawk Launcher Crewman) and his MOS of 64A became his secondary MOS (SMOS).  

On 24 October 1966 he was transferred to Vietnam for duty as a Hawk Launcher Crewman in an artillery battalion.  On 23 November 1966 he was transferred to an aviation company for duty as a door gunner in MOS 11B (Infantryman).  On 4 January 1967 he was awarded the SMOS of 11B20 and his 64A MOS was withdrawn.

While serving as a door gunner in an aviation unit, he was awarded the Air Medal with “V” device and nineteen clusters, the Army Commendation Medal with “V” device and first oak leaf cluster (1OLC), the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device, the Aircraft Crewman Badge, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and the National Defense Service Medal.  He remained in Vietnam until April 1968 when he was returned to Oakland Army Base, California where he was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-5 on 20 April 1968 and was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).  He had served 2 years, 10 months and 14 days of total active service.

On 14 August 1970 he enlisted for a period of 4 years and the Army Security Agency enlistment option.  He completed his training at Fort Devens, Massachusetts and was sent on temporary duty to Korea on 2 July 1971.  He remained in Korea until he was transferred to Thailand on 12 August 1971 for duty as a traffic analyst.  He served in Thailand until 13 August 1972 when he was returned to the United States for duty.  He remained on active duty until 23 July 1976 when he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-6.  He had served 8 years, 9 months and 23 days of total active service. 

A review of the available records, which includes a copy of his Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) fails to show that the applicant was wounded in combat in Vietnam.  However, copies of his medical records, submitted by the applicant with his application, shows that he complained in September 1970 of abdominal injuries (pain) that was reoccurring and conveyed to the attending physician that it was the result of his involvement in a helicopter crash. 

A review of the DA Form 20 submitted by the applicant with his application and the DA Form 20 contained in his official records differ; in that the DA Form 20 contained in his records is blank in item 40 (Wounds) whereas the one submitted by the applicant has entries annotated in block 40.

A review of the letter submitted by the applicant with his application consists of a letter addressed to the Board and authored by a physician in Kaysville, Utah indicating that he was the battalion flight surgeon, that the applicant was involved in two incidents on 1 July and 3 July 1967 in which he was the door gunner of two helicopters that were shot down.  He contends that the applicant was treated and medically evacuated to a hospital and that he did not receive his awards of the Purple Heart.  He cites as further evidence the DA Form 20 provided by the applicant.

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 a result of hostile action, that the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, and that the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.

Army Regulation (AR) 672-5-1, in effect at the time, established the criteria for award of the CIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for the CIB, an individual must be an infantryman with an infantry military occupational specialty (MOS) and must perform duty as an infantryman, as a member of an infantry unit of brigade or smaller size, during any period in which that unit was engaged in ground combat.  Battle participation credit alone is not sufficient.

United States Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1, Appendix V, provided guidance on awards of the CIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that the criteria contained in AR 672-5-1 are based on the principle that the infantry MOS identifies the man who is trained, lives and fights as an infantryman.  The CIB is a unique award which was established to recognize the infantryman and only the infantryman, for his service.  The CIB has succeeded in its basic purpose of distinguishing the infantryman and has maintained the morale and distinction of our basic fighting arm.  The CIB is not an award for being shot at or for undergoing the hazards of day to day combat.  Other awards and decorations are designed to accommodate these situations. 

Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) Directive 672-1 provided a list of infantry positions for which a CIB would be normally authorized.  The position of a door gunner in an aviation unit is not listed.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 serves as the current authority for decorations and awards.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the Air Assault Badge is awarded for satisfactory completion of the standard air assault training course conducted under the program of instruction according to the Training and Doctrine Command or completion of the air assault course while assigned to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) since 1 April 1974.

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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, the evidence of record fails to show that during his assignment he performed the duties of an infantryman while engaged in ground combat against the enemy. Although his records do show that he was subsequently awarded a secondary MOS of an infantryman while performing the duties of a door gunner in an aviation unit, this duty did not qualify as a primary infantryman duty in the spirit in which the CIB was intended.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that in accordance with the applicable regulations governing award of the CIB, he is not entitled to be awarded that badge.

3.  It also appears, that based on the spirit of the regulation, that he was awarded other awards in recognition of his outstanding performance of duty; however, the receipt of those awards do not constitute an authority to award him the CIB.

4.  The Board has noted the statement from the physician indicating that the applicant was involved in two helicopter crashes as well as the medical documents that he submitted in which he sought treatment 2 years after his departure from Vietnam.  However, the evidence of record differs from the evidence submitted by the applicant in regards to his injuries and the physician’s letter appears to rely on the document submitted by the applicant which outlines his injuries.  Therefore, given the discrepancies that exist between the official records and the evidence submitted, the Board must presume that what the Army did in his case was correct at the time.  In the absence of more convincing evidence to show that he was in fact injured in combat and was subsequently treated for those injuries, the Board is inclined to deny his request for the award of the Purple Heart. 

5.  Inasmuch as the Air Assault Badge was not an authorized award during the period in question and since the applicant has failed to show that he meets the qualifications for such an award, there is no basis to award him the Air Assault Badge. 

6.  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

___slp___  __rks ___  ___jpi___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051639	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/03/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015/PH	
2.  157	107.0111/CIB	
3.  168	107.0122/AIR ASSAULT BAD	
4.		
5.		
6.