PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           13 March 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083819

	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. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. John A. Kelly		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, in effect, that he be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that that he was injured on 7 December 1963, while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He states that he was treated at a field hospital and released.  However, he was never recommended for the PH. He claims that the helicopter he was on was shot down about 15 miles south of Saigon, RVN, on 7 December 1963.  He states that he received cuts, abrasions, bruises, and internal injuries for which he was treated and released.  In support of his application, he provides extracts from a directory published by the Vietnam Helicopter’s Pilot Association, which includes a summary of the incident in question that occurred on 7 December 1963.   

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army and entered active duty on 31 August 1962.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 13B (Field Artillery Crewmember), and he served in the RVN with Battery A, 1st Battalion, 8th Artillery, 25th Infantry Division, from 
12 September through 11 December 1963.  

5.  The applicant’s Service Record (DA Form 24) contains no entry in Section 8 (Wounds Received Through Enemy Action), which indicates that he was not wounded or injured as a result of enemy action.  Section 9 (Medals, Decorations, and Citations) contains a list of awards earned by the applicant during his during his tenure on active duty.  This list includes the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (AFEM), Air Medal (AM) 5th Award, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Rifle).  The PH is not included in this list of awards.  

6.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a Combat Mission Record (USASGV Form 58), which contains a record of the applicant’s flight missions as a gunner between October and December 1963.  The mission listed for 7 December 1963 was a class F mission, which was described as a maintenance recovery mission.  The applicant’s service record and MPRJ contain no derogatory information or a specific disqualification that would have precluded him from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).  

7.  The applicant’s separation document (DD Form 214), which was issued to him on the date of his separation from active duty, 24 August 1965, shows in Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) lists the following awards earned by the applicant during his tenure on active duty:  AFEM; AM 5th Award; and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge (Rifle).  The PH is not included in this list of authorized awards.  

8.  A review of the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster was conducted in connection with the processing of this case.  The applicant’s name is not included in this official list of RVN casualties.  
9.  The applicant provided copies of extracts from a directory published by the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association that indicates that he received minor injuries as a result of a helicopter accident on 7 December 1963.  This mission is listed in the directory as a combat mission; however, there is no official record confirmation of this mission status.  He also provides copies of medical treatment records from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), dated in 1991, which indicate he was treated for ear problems and anxiety related to his RVN service.  

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army’s awards policy.  Paragraph 2-8 contains guidance on awarding the PH.  It states, in pertinent part, that the PH is authorized to members who are wounded in action.  A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained in action.  The wound for which a PH is being awarded must have required treatment by a medical officer, and the records of medical treatment for the wound or injury for which the PH is being awarded must have been made a matter of official record. 

11.  Chapter 4 prescribes the policy for award of the AGCM and it states that this award is for awarded for a period of exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity in active Federal military service.  For the first award only, a period of more than 
1 year is considered a qualifying period, if given at the termination of a period of active Federal service.  It is the decision of the unit commander to award the AGCM, however, a specific disqualification action must be taken to deny the award.  

12.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) provides guidance on determining or establishing the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  It states that Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) 8, 1974, announced award of the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation to Headquarters, United States Military Assistance Command, RVN, and its subordinate units during the period 
8 February 1962 to 28 March 1973. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was injured in action while serving in the RVN, and therefore he is entitled to the PH.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, in order to support an award of a PH a member must have been wounded or injured in action, must have been treated for this wound or injury by military medical personnel, and this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  

3.  In this case, notwithstanding the extracts from the Vietnam Helicopter Pilot Directory and the DVA medical treatment records, there are no medical or other official records confirming that the applicant was ever wounded or injured as a result of enemy action while serving in the RVN.  Thus, the Board finds the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support awarding the PH has not been met, and that there is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.  

4.  The applicant is advised that the veracity of his claim of entitlement to the PH based on his being injured as a result of a helicopter accident while on a flight mission in the RVN is not in question.  However, based on the lack of evidence to show that his injuries were the result of enemy action, and given his flight mission record refers to the mission in question as a maintenance recovery mission, the Board finds that the regulatory burden of proof required to award the PH has not been satisfied.  Therefore, it concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support awarding him the PH at this time.  This action is taken solely on the lack of supporting evidence, in the interest of all those who served in the RVN and who faced similar circumstances.  

5.  Lacking any derogatory information on file or a specific disqualification from any of the active duty unit commanders for which he served, the Board concludes that the applicant should be awarded the first award of the AGCM for his honorable qualifying service from 31 August 1962 through 24 August 1965.  

6.  The Board also finds that he is entitled to the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation based on his service in the RVN.  Thus, the Board concludes that it would also be appropriate to add this award to his record at this time.  

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 individual concerned the Army Good Conduct Medal for his honorable period of qualifying service from 31 August 1962 through 
24 August 1965; by showing that he is entitled to the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for his service in the RVN; and by providing him a corrected separation document that includes these awards.  

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__TAP__  __RWA _  __ JAK__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_  Thomas A. Pagan  ._
		       CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083819	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/03/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1965/08/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-205  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Overseas Returnee	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015	
2.  46	107.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.