PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           20 March 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076689

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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, reconsideration of his earlier request to be awarded the Purple Heart.

3.  The applicant states, if effect, that the medic who treated him left Vietnam before he did, but that he accepts the responsibility for not following-up on this award.  He submits a copy of a 1994 letter from the company medic who treated him at the time.  

4.  The applicant's original request was considered as case AC97-11288 and denied on 11 February 1998.  An interim case, AR2002071744, was administratively closed because the application was signed by the medic who treated the applicant on the battlefield and not by the applicant himself.

5.  Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the procedures for processing requests to correct military records.  Paragraph 2-15b provides that requests for reconsideration, which are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case will be considered only if the staff of the Board determines that substantial relevant new evidence shows fraud, mistake of law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or that there is substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. 

6.  The 1994 letter from the medic was cited as an enclosure to the original application, but it was not available, it had apparently become inadvertently detached and lost.  The staff of the Board has determined that this document now constitutes substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. Board consideration is warranted.

7.  The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 1963.  Following training as an infantryman and parachute training, he was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry (Airborne) on Okinawa. He was transferred to Vietnam on 5 May 1965 with the unit.  The applicant returned to the United States on 25 April 1966 and was separated with an honorable characterization of service on 28 April 1966.  There is no discreditable evidence of record and he had exclusively "Excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his enlistment.  

8.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates his authorized awards are the Vietnam Service Medal, the Parachutist Badge, the Expert Qualification Badge (M-14 Rifle), the Sharpshooter Qualification Badge (M60 Machinegun) and the Marksman Qualification Badge (Pistol .45 and M-1 Rifle).  Additionally, Special Orders Number 80, Headquarters, 173rd Airborne Brigade awarded him the Combat Infantryman Badge on 3 July 1965.
9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides that the 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.  A record of punishment is not automatically disqualifying.  At that time, a single conduct or efficiency rating of less than excellent was disqualifying; although, a “Good” academic mark in a service school was not disqualifying.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of non-favorable consideration and permits the individual to respond.  At that time, non-favorable consideration was normally noted on the DA Form 20.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also authorizes a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each designated campaign listed in Appendix B of the regulation and states that authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign or service medal.  A silver service star is authorized in lieu of five bronze service stars.  The regulation also lists the designated campaign periods for which a bronze service star is authorized for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal.  These include:  The Vietnam Defense Campaign commencing 8 March 1965 and ending 24 December 1965 and the Vietnam Counteroffensive, ending 30 June 1966.

11.  Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 682-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows that during the applicant's service in Vietnam the 2nd Battalion, 503rd was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for action on 16 March 1966 by DA General Order (GO) 40, of 1966, the Meritorious Unit Commendation for the period 5 May 1965 to 4 May 1967 by DAGO 67 of 1968 and the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation for the period 5 May 1695 to 26 September 1970 by DAGO 51 OF 1971.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Vietnam Campaign Medal with "1960-" device.  The RVN awarded this medal to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States for qualifying service in Vietnam during the period 1 March 1961 through 28 March 1973.  Qualifying service included assignment in Vietnam for 6 months or more and contributed direct combat support to the Republic of Vietnam and Armed Forces.  Individuals who had qualified for award of the Vietnam Service Medal or the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and were evacuated prior to completing six months of service due wounds resulting from hostile action were entitled to award of the Vietnam Campaign Medal with "1960-" device.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained in action against an enemy or as the 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.

14.  The 29 November 1994 letter from a former Army medic relates that the company was heavily engaged with an enemy force "all day" on 18 December 1965.  He reports that the applicant was wounded by shrapnel that, "had ripped across the back of his left hand.  I had run out of tagsI left South Vietnam in January 1966 and had forgotten to get the tag written out.  Over the years it was forgottenI feel guilty that [the applicant] has gone without this award.Enclosed is a list of some of the patients I had taken care of that day.  [The applicant] should have been on that list."

15. Actually attached to the letter is a copy of a 1st Infantry Division General Order Number 38 of 6 January 1966 that awarded the Purple Heart to 40 soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry (Airborne) who were wounded on 18 December 1965.  Of those casualties, 21 were C Company troopers.

16.  During the processing of this case a member of the Army Review Boards Agency staff conducted search of the unit files at the National Archives, Suitland Maryland.  That search failed to show that the applicant was entitled to the Purple Heart but it did disclose a brigade operations log showing that from 1045 until 1845 hours 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry was engaged with a sizable enemy force.  The log shows that helicopter evacuation was requested for more than 35 members of C Company who had become casualties. 
 
CONCLUSIONS: 

1.  This scenario fails to meet the regulatory requirement for award of the Purple Heart because there is no record of treatment.  Nevertheless, in light of the brigade operations log showing that helicopter medical evacuation was requested for more than 35 members of C Company and the division general order showing that 40 individuals from the 2nd Battalion were wounded that day (which would not include those who had been hospitalized), the medic's statement, that he treated the applicant but had run out of casualty tags and regrets his oversight in not submitting one later, becomes completely convincing. The Board concludes that there is sufficient substantiating evidence to establish that the applicant was wounded in action and treated.  He should be awarded the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant distinguished himself by his conduct, efficiency and fidelity as evidenced by his record of offense free behavior and his exclusively excellent evaluations.  He should be awarded the Good Conduct Medal for the period from 24 June 1963 to 28 April 1966.

3.  In addition to the above and the awards already listed on the applicant's DD Form 214, his authorized also include, two bronze service stars for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with "1960-" device, the Presidential Unit Citation, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below will correct errors and rectify an injustice.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was awarded the Purple Heart for a wound sustained in combat on 18 December 1965 and the Good Conduct Medal for the period from 24 June 1963 to 28 April 1966.

2.  That in addition to the awards already listed on the applicant's DD Form 214, his other awards also include, two bronze service stars for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal, the Vietnam Campaign Medal with "1960-" device, the Presidential Unit Citation, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

BOARD VOTE:  

__LLS___  _CJP __  _KWL ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__   Luther L. Santiful___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076689	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030320	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PLUS	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.