PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           17 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077189

	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. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect all the awards and decorations he earned while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that it is his belief that he is entitled to the Purple Heart (PH), Bronze Star Medal (BSM), three Presidential Unit Citations (PUC), and the Expert Qualification Badge (M-16 Rifle).  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 30 July 1968, he was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Organization Supply Specialist) and he continuously served on active duty until 29 July 1970, at which time he was honorably separated after completing a total of 2 years of active military service. 

5.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4 (SP4/E-4).  It also confirms that he served in the 1st Battalion, 505th Infantry, RVN, from 8 April 1969 to 7 December 1969, and that he participated in three campaigns during his assignment tenure.  Block 40 (Wounds) is blank and contains no entry indicating that the applicant was ever wounded in action.  

6.  Block 41 (Awards and Decorations) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 does not include the BSM, PH, or the PUC in the list of authorized awards entered.  The awards entered in this block include the following:  Army Commendation Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; RVN Campaign Medal with 60 Device; RVN Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation; and Sharpshooter Qualification Badge (Rifle).  In addition, during the review of this case, the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster was reviewed, and the applicant’s name was not included in this list of RVN casualties.  

7.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains no derogatory information, and there is no indication that he was ever disqualified from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM) by any of the unit commanders for which he served during his tenure on active duty.

8.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant’s DD Form 214, contains the following awards earned by the applicant during his active duty tenure:  National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; RVN Campaign Medal with 60 Device; RVN Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation; and Sharpshooter Qualification Badge (Rifle).  The PH, BSM, PUC, and Expert Qualification Badge (M-16 Rifle) are not included in this list of authorized awards. 

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 2-8 provides guidance on awarding the PH.  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 treatment by a medical officer, and this medical treatment must have been a matter of official record.  

10.  Paragraph 2-13 contains guidance on the Vietnam Service Medal and it states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this medal for each campaign a member participated in during his assignment tenure in the RVN.  

11.  Table B-1 lists all campaigns, service requirements, and inscriptions for streamers.  It confirms that the applicant should receive campaign participation credit for the following three campaigns that occurred during his tenure in the RVN:  Tet 69 Counteroffensive, 1969; Vietnam Summer-Fall, 1969; and Vietnam Winter-Spring, 1970.  

12.  Paragraph 3-13 provides guidance on awarding the BSM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the BSM is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service.  As with all personal decorations, to support awarding the BSM and adding it to a member’s service record, a formal recommendation must have been made for the award, it must have been approved by the proper authority, and the award must have been announced in orders.  

13.  Chapter 4 contains guidance on the award of the AGCM and it states, in pertinent part, that this award is authorized for members 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 the case of the first award, in which case, a period of 1 or more years is considered a qualifying period if it is awarded at the termination of a period of Federal military 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, the applicant’s unit, 1st Battalion, 505th Infantry, was awarded the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  However, the unit never received a PUC.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he is entitled to the PH, the BSM, three PUCS, and the Expert Qualification Badge (M-16).  However, the Boards finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  There is no evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that makes any suggestion that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH, BSM, or Expert Qualification Badge (M-16) during his tenure on active duty.  Further, the record confirms that his unit did not receive a PUC during his assignment tenure in the RVN.

3.  However, the applicant’s record contains no derogatory information or disqualification from any of the applicant’s active duty unit commanders that would have prevented him from receiving the AGCM.  Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant served a qualifying period of honorable service that entitles him to receive the first award of the AGCM, and it concludes it would be appropriate to provide him this award at this time.  

4.  In addition, the Board finds that the applicant’s service and campaign participation in the RVN entitles him to three bronze service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal, and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would also appropriate to add these awards to his records at this time.

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 by awarding the individual concerned the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, for his honorable service from 30 July 1968 to 29 July 1970; by showing that he received three bronze service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation; and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects these changes.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__LLS__  __BJE___  __WDP__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Luther L. Santiful__
		    CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077189	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Partial Relief)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0013	
2.	107.0014	
3.	107.0108	
4.		
5.		
6.