PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071964

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 he be awarded the Purple Heart.

3.  The applicant states that he believes that he should have been awarded the Purple Heart for an injury to his toe that occurred when an enemy mortar struck the company latrine.  In support of his application he submits a letter from a fellow soldier that served with him and a copy of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision regarding his claim for disability for the injury.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was inducted in Louisville, Kentucky, on 1 May 1968.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Vietnam on 18 September 1968, where he was assigned to the 64th Transportation Company for duty as a heavy truck driver.

5.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 15 February 1969 and departed Vietnam on 9 September 1969.  He was transferred to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where he remained until he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 30 April 1970, due to the expiration of his term of service.  He had served 2 years of total active service and his report of separation (DD Form 214) shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal.  His records also show that he received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service and his records contain no evidence of derogatory information.  

6.  His personnel records contain no evidence of him being wounded or injured while in Vietnam.  Additionally, a review of the Casualty File Listing maintained by the Total Army Personnel Command failed to show that he was ever reported as a casualty.  The applicant’s medical records were released to the VA Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana, subsequent to his separation.

7.  The VA Rating Decision provided by the applicant indicates that his medical records show that he was treated for a complaint of an infected toe on 24 March 1969 and that ointment and a dressing was applied. There is no evidence of any further treatment.  The applicant also provided the same statement from a fellow soldier that he has provided to this Board and the VA denied service connection for his claimed injury on 14 March 2002.

8.  The third party statement submitted by the applicant is from a fellow soldier who claims to have served with the applicant and indicates that he witnessed on two occasions, the applicant being in the vicinity of exploding mines and mortars, which caused loss of hearing and on one of the occasions, the applicant was injured in the foot and taken to the hospital when a mortar hit a latrine.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound/injury 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.

10.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register-Vietnam Era) was published to assist commanders and personnel officers in determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  Table 1 (Army Units in Numerical Order) of the pamphlet indicates that the applicant’s unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm and Gold Star (RVNGC w/Palm and GS) Unit Citation for service in Vietnam during the period the applicant was assigned.  It also shows that his unit was also awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) for the period he was assigned. 

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 outlines the criteria for award of the Good Conduct Medal (GCMDL).  It states, in pertinent part, that the GCMDL is awarded for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service.  It is awarded on a selective basis to each soldier who distinguishes him or herself from among their fellow soldiers by their exemplary conduct, efficiency, and fidelity throughout their service.  There is no right or entitlement to the medal until the immediate commander has approved the award and the award has been announced in permanent orders.  Separation transfer points will review records of enlisted personnel being separated to determine whether they qualify for award of the GCMDL.  Where possible, a reasonable effort will be made to contact the unit commander prior to awarding the medal to qualified members.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence in the available records to show that the applicant was wounded or injured in Vietnam during an action by enemy forces or that he was treated for such an injury that would qualify for award of the Purple Heart.  Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, there appears to be no basis to award him a Purple Heart.

2.  However, the evidence of record does show that he is entitled to be awarded the RVNGC w/Palm and GS Unit Citation and the MUC.  Therefore, the Board finds that it would be in the interest of justice to do so at this time.

3.  The Board also notes that the applicant had excellent conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service and his records contain no derogatory information that would serve to disqualify him for award of the GCMDL.  Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to award him the GCMDL for the period of 1 May 1968 through 30 April 1970.

4.  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 individual concerned the RVNGC w/Palm and GS Unit Citation, the MUC and the GCMDL for the period of 1 May 1968 through 30 April 1970.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__inw ___  __jm____  ___js ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____John N. Slone ______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071964	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015/PH	
2.  102	107.0056/GCMDL	
3.  140	107.0094/RVNGC	
4.		
5.		
6.