PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           30 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060127

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 that his discharge be changed to a disability retirement.

3.  The applicant states that at the time of his separation he met the criteria for a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and a disability retirement.  He had less than  20 years active service, he was medically unfit to continue his military service due to combat disabilities, and the disabilities manifested themselves to a degree greater than 20 percent disabling.  He provides no supporting evidence.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 July 1968.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 29D (Ground Control Radar Repairman).

5.  The applicant arrived in Vietnam on or about 7 November 1969 and was assigned to the 125th Aviation Company.  He was wounded in action (hand grenade fragment wounds to the right and left leg and abdominal wall) on 1 May 1970 and was medically evacuated to the States.  He was awarded the Purple Heart.  He was also awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device for service on 1 May 1970 on General Orders 5815, Headquarters, 1st Aviation Brigade dated 4 July 1970.

6.  On 28 July 1970, the applicant was reassigned to Fort Huachuca, AZ where he performed duties as a ground control radar repairman.  

7.  The applicant completed a separation physical on 8 April 1971.  It appears he was given a consult at this time.  He had noted a partial loss of movement in his right ankle so the consult was most likely with orthopedics; however, it is not available.  His permanent P3 profile was changed to a P1 profile at this time and he was found qualified for separation.  He was released from active duty upon his expiration term of service after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of creditable active service with no lost time.  His Enlisted Qualification Record, DA Form 20, shows that his conduct and efficiency were rated as excellent throughout his enlistment.  The applicant’s Report of Transfer or Discharge,     DD Form 214, shows that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (not with “V” device).

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.

9.  Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. 

10.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  At the time, a soldier’s conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as “excellent” for the entire period of qualifying service.

11.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows that the 125th Aviation Company was awarded the Valorous Unit Award for the period 1 May – 29 June 1970.  Later, all units assigned to Vietnam were awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

CONCLUSIONS:

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 evidence of record shows that after the applicant was released from the hospital he was assigned to Fort Huachuca, AZ and continued to perform his duties in an excellent manner until he was separated almost a year later.  There is no evidence to show that he was unfit for duty at the time of his separation.  

3.  Any rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved (i. e., the more stringent standard by which a soldier is determined not to be medically fit for duty versus the standard by which a civilian would be determined to be socially or industrially impaired), an individual’s medical condition may be found to be not unfitting by the Army and yet be found to be disabling by the VA.
4.  The Board notes that the applicant’s excellent conduct and efficiency ratings made him eligible for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

5.  The applicant was assigned to a unit during a period of time that unit was awarded the Valorous Unit Award and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and so is eligible for these awards.  

6.  The Board notes an administrative error on the applicant’s DD Form 214.  It shows he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal whereas he was actually awarded the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 12 July 1968 – 9 July 1971.

2.  That the applicant’s DD Form 214 be amended to delete the Bronze Star Medal and to add the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Valorous Unit Award, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__cla___  __aao___  __hbo___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Celia L. Adolphi
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060127	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011030	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.