PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           25 SEPTEMBER 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003084715

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 records be corrected to reflect award of the Purple Heart.  In a self-authored statement he indicates that he sustained shrapnel wounds to his back and side on or about 6 November 1967.  He does note, however, that the date of the action could have been 1 December 1967.  He states that his unit was crossing a small rice paddy when they came under enemy fire.  At one point it became obvious that they would have to run from the rice paddy.  He states explosions were all around him and that he saw a hand grenade coming at him.  He states he sped up and didn’t know he was hurt until a half-hour later.  He states that “one of the boys in the squad directly behind [him] said he saw and RPG (rocket propelled grenade) come between” him and the soldier who told him what happened.  

3.  The applicant indicated that he was not bleeding much and that the company medic pulled a few pieces of shrapnel out and told him he should go to the aid station to have his back looked at.  The applicant states that he did not go to the aid station because his unit was short personnel and he knew he was needed.  He states that his unit first sergeant told him he would still receive the Purple Heart and wrote the applicant’s information in his “black book.”  The applicant states he never received the award but when he asked his first sergeant just prior to departing Vietnam about the award, the first sergeant told him he “hadn’t had time to turn it in yet” but would do it that day.

4.  In addition to his self-authored statement, the applicant also submits a statement from another individual who indicated he was with the applicant the day he was wounded.

5.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was inducted and entered active duty on 24 August 1966.  While undergoing training he qualified as a marksman with the M-14 rifle and the M-16 automatic rifle and was awarded the associated badge and component bars.  He was also awarded the 1st Class Gunner’s Badge with Machine Gun (M-60) component bar.  The qualification badges, however, were omitted from his separation document.

6.  In February 1967 the applicant was assigned to Vietnam as a rifleman with 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division.  He was awarded the Air Medal for meritorious achievement during the period 13 February 1967 to 30 June 1967.  Orders issued by the 1st Cavalry Division confirmed the award.  However, the award was omitted from his separation document.

7.  The applicant departed Vietnam in February 1968 after being awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service.

8.  Following the applicant’s return to the United States, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina where he remained until he was released from active duty in pay grade E-5 on 23 August 1968.  His character of service was reflected as honorable.

9.  The statement submitted in support of the applicant’s petition for award of the Purple Heart was authored in October 2002.  It notes that the applicant was in his squad while in Vietnam and that a RPG “was fired and hit the dirt between us.”  The author of the statement notes that he (the author) was ok, but that the applicant was “hit by shrapnel in the side and back.”  He notes that the applicant was told to go to the aid station but he “wouldn’t go and the first sergeant told him he would still get his purple heart.”  He states the applicant asked the first sergeant about the award “at the end of our tour on February 12, 1967 [sic]” but was told that “he still had it in his book and showed it to us.”  The author stated that the first sergeant told them “he was going ahead that day and turn it in.”

10.  There is no evidence the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart.  Item 40 (wounds) on the applicant’s Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) is blank and the applicant’s name is not among a list of individual’s who were reported as combat casualties during the Vietnam War.  There were no medical records available to the Board, or provided by the applicant.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for wounds 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 by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Army 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 Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond.  There is no evidence in the applicant's official military personnel file that his commander ever disqualified him for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  His conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his military service were excellent and his records contain no evidence of any disciplinary actions or incidents of misconduct.

13.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 notes that the applicant’s unit (2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry) was awarded a Presidential Unit Citation, a Valorous Unit Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation and participated in three designated campaigns (Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase II and III, and TET Counteroffensive) while the applicant was a member of the organization.  The unit awards, and his entitled to three bronze service stars on the Vietnam Service Medal, which is reflected on his separation document, denoting campaign participation, were omitted from his separation document.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant does submit a statement supporting his award of the Purple Heart, the Board notes there is no medical evidence which supports the applicant’s contention that he is entitled to the Purple Heart.  In the absence of more compelling medical evidence, the Board concludes there is insufficient evidence on which to base an award of the Purple Heart.

2.  The Board does note, however, that the applicant was awarded an Air Medal, a 1st Class Gunner’s Badge with Machine Gun (M-60) component bar, and that he qualified as a marksman with the M-14 rifle and the M-16 automatic rifle and was awarded the associated badge an component bars.  His records should be corrected accordingly.

3.  The evidence also confirms that the applicant is entitled to a Presidential Unit Citation, a Valorous Unit Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, and three bronze stars on his Vietnam Service Medal.  His records should be corrected to reflect that information.

4.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 23 August 1968.  There is no evidence his commander ever disqualified him from receiving the award and no evidence of any misconduct which would justify denying him the award.  In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the applicant met the basic qualifications for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and it would be appropriate and in the interest of equity to award him that decoration for the period 24 August 1966 through 
23 August 1968.

5.  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:

a.  by showing that the individual concerned was awarded an Air Medal, a 1st Class Gunner’s Badge with Machine Gun (M-60) component bar, and that he qualified as a marksman with the M-14 rifle and the M-16 automatic rifle and was awarded the associated badge an component bars;

b.  by showing that he is entitled to a Presidential Unit Citation, a Valorous Unit Award, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, and three bronze stars on his Vietnam Service Medal; and

c.  by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 
24 August 1966 through 23 August 1968.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__JNS __  __LDS __  __RKS __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_____John S. Slone_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084715	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030925	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.