PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             30 September 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003085529

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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) and Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM); and that the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Machine Gun and Rifle Bars be added to his separation document (DD Form 214).  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, his unit commander recommended him for the ARCOM and he should receive this award.  He claims that he is entitled to receive the PH based on shrapnel and punji stick wounds he received in combat and that were treated in the field by a medical aidman (MEDIC).  He claims that he was ultimately admitted to the hospital when gangrene set in.  He also states that his DD Form 214 is in error because it omits the AGCM and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Machine Gun and Rifle Bars from the list of authorized awards contained in Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).  He also asks that his records be reviewed and that all awards to which he is entitled be added. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 21 September 1966, he entered active duty in the Army.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5).

5.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) confirms that he served in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 13 April 1967 to 12 April 1968.  During this assignment, he served in MOS 11B as a rifleman and squad leader in Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division.  Block 40 (Wounds) is blank and contains no entry showing that he was ever wounded or injured in action.

6.  On 10 February 1971, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) after completing a total of 2 years, 11 months, and 5 days of active military service.  At the time of his separation, he held the rank of SGT/E-5.  Item 
Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Medals Awarded or Authorized) of the DD Form 214 he was issued upon his separation lists the following awards he earned during his active duty tenure:  Combat Infantryman Badge; Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars; Air Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; and Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

7.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no orders or other documents that indicate that he was recommended for or awarded the PH or the ARCOM.  In addition, the applicant’s separation physical examination (SF 88), dated 17 July 1969, gave no indication that the applicant ever sustained a combat wound or injury while serving on active duty. 

8.  The MPRJ did contain Special Orders 19, dated 31 January 1967, issued by Headquarters, 3rd Training Brigade, (INF), United States Army Training Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia, which authorized the applicant the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Machine Gun Bar.  The MPRJ is void of derogatory information and there is no indication that he was ever disqualified from receiving the AGCM by any of the active duty unit commanders for whom he served.

9.  The Clinical Record Cover Sheet (DA Form 8-275-3) the applicant submitted shows he was diagnosed as having cellulitis of the right lower leg.  The Installation Clearance Record (DA Form 137) he provided indicates that he was recommended for the ARCOM, and the copy of Special Orders 119, dated 8 May 1969, issued by Headquarters, 1st Armored Division (Old Ironsides), Fort Hood, Texas that he submitted, confirms he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

10.  During the review of this case, the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster was reviewed to determine if the applicant was ever reported as a casualty while he was serving in the RVN.  His name was not included in this official DA list of RVN casualties.  In addition, the unit historical files of the applicant’s unit (Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division) that are maintained at the National Archives, College Park, Maryland, were reviewed to determine if the applicant’s contentions could be supported by the unit records.  The unit historical files contained no confirmation that the applicant was wounded in action while serving in the RVN.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the policy and procedures for the Army’s awards program.  It states, in pertinent part, that the PH is awarded for a wound 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 required medical treatment; and that this medical treatment was made a matter of official record.

12.  Paragraph 3-16 of the awards regulation contains guidance on awarding the ARCOM and it states, in pertinent part, that it is awarded to any member who distinguished himself or herself by heroism, meritorious achievement or meritorious service.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

13.  Chapter 4 of the same regulation contains guidance on awarding the AGCM and it states, in pertinent part, that it is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  A normal qualifying period is 3 years; however, for the first award only, a period of 1 or more years is a qualifying period upon termination of service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the AGCM, disqualification must be justified.

14.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the unit awards received by units serving in the RVN.  This document confirms that during his assignment tenure in the RVN, the applicant’s unit received the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he should be awarded the PH, and considered the medical treatment record he submitted in support of this claim.  However, it finds the evidence provided does not satisfy the regulatory evidentiary standard necessary to support award of the PH.  By regulation, in order to support awarding the PH, there must be evidence to show that the member was wounded or injured in action, that the wound or injury for which the award was being made was treated by military medical personnel, and this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  

2.  The evidence of record gives no indication that the applicant ever sustained or was treated for a wound he received in RVN as a result of enemy action or otherwise, or that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH.  Further, the Vietnam Casualty Roster does not include the applicant’s name in the official list of RVN casualties, and the applicant’s separation physical examination and the unit historical files of the applicant’s unit that are maintained at the National Archives, College Park, Maryland gives no indication that he was ever wounded or injured in action while serving in the RVN.

3.  While not a formal recommendation, the DA Form 137 submitted by the applicant indicates that his unit commander recommended the applicant for the ARCOM, which was pending at the time of his separation.  The evidence of record provides no confirmation that the ARCOM was ever processed and approved by the proper authority.  The Board presumes this was the result of administrative error in the processing of the award, and it has elected to act on the unit commander’s recommendation.  Based on the unit commander’s recommendation and on a review of the applicant’s record, the Board concludes the applicant should be awarded the ARCOM for meritorious service during the period 3 April 1968 through 25 August 1969, while he was serving as an infantry squad leader at Fort Hood Texas.  

4.  The Board also found that the evidence provided by the applicant confirms he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Machine Gun and Rifle Bars.  As a result, the Board finds it would be appropriate to add this badge to this records at this time.  

5.  In addition, lacking any derogatory information on file in the applicant’s record or a specific disqualifying action from any of his active duty unit commanders, the Board concludes that the applicant served a qualifying period of honorable service from 21 September 1966 through 25 August 1969 that entitles him to receive the first award of the AGCM.  

6.  The Board also finds that the evidence of record confirms that based on his unit service in the RVN, the applicant is also entitled to RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  Thus, it concludes that it would also be appropriate to add these awards 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:

a.  awarding the individual concerned the Army Commendation Medal, for meritorious service from 3 April 1968 through 25 August 1969, while assigned to Company A, 5th Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, 
Fort Hood, Texas;

b. awarding him the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, for his period of qualifying honorable active duty service from 21 September 1966 through 25 August 1969; 

c.  adding his earned Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Machine Gun and Rifle Bars to his record; 

d.  showing that based on his service in the RVN, he is entitled to the  Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation; and

e.  providing him a corrected separation document that includes these awards.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__MVT__  __MM___  __RJW __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond J. Wagner
		   CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085529	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 61	 107.0015	
2.  66	107.0020	
3.102	107.0056	
4.		
5.		
6.