PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            31 OCTOBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075767

	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. Curtis L. Greenway 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 award of the Purple Heart.  He states he was wounded in August 1971 while in Vietnam.  He submits no evidence in support of his request.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 27 January 1971.  He qualified as a marksman with the M-16 rifle while undergoing training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and was awarded the associated badge and component bar.  The badge, however, was omitted from his separation report.

4.  In June 1971 the applicant was assigned to Vietnam as a heavy truck driver with the 585th Transportation Company and in August 1971 was promoted to pay grade E-4.  In February 1972 he was reassigned to the 62nd Transportation Company.  The applicant returned to the United States in March 1972 and on 
25 March 1972 he was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service.

5.  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.  There were no medical records available to the Board.  Item 40 (wounds) on the applicant's Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) is blank and the applicant's name was not among those on a list of soldiers reported as casualties in Vietnam.

6.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also 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.  The applicant's conduct and efficiency rating, throughout his military service, were excellent and there is no evidence of any misconduct on disciplinary actions in the applicant's record.

7.  A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows that the applicant is entitled to a Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and 

three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal denoting participation in three designated campaign periods (Vietnam Counteroffensive-Phase VII and Consolidation I and II).  Although the applicant's separation document reflects the Vietnam Service Medal, the other elements were omitted.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes that there is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which would serve as a basis to award him the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 25 March 1972.  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 27 January 1971 through 
25 March 1972.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant qualified as a marksman with the M-16 rifle and was awarded the associated badge and component bar.  His records should be corrected accordingly.

4.  The Board also notes that the applicant is entitled to a Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal based on his service in Vietnam and those elements should be added to his record.

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 awarding the individual concerned the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 27 January 1971 through 25 March 1972;

b.  by showing that he qualified as a marksman with the M-16 rifle and was awarded the associated badge and component bar; and

c.  by showing that he is entitled to a Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm and three bronze service stars on his Vietnam Service Medal.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__CLG__  __RKS __  __DPH __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Curtis L. Greenway____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075767	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021031	
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.