MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           15 July 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082632

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Richard P. Nelson		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 91S/93S, Combat Medic, as his primary MOS; discharge in grade E-5, rather than E-4; awards of the Silver Star, the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Combat Medical Badge, the Expert Field Medical Badge, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Prisoner of War Medal, the Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).

APPLICANT STATES:

1.	His case is much different than other veterans of the Vietnam War.

2.	He was “drafted” in 1965, volunteered for Airborne and Special Forces training, completed both, then was “re-designated” Regular Army.  He received further training at the Tropical Warfare School in Panama.

3.	Following his Tropical Warfare Training, he was assigned to the 509th Special Forces, was trained in the “Davey Crockett, Small Nuclear Warhead System” and promoted to E-5.  The applicant states that the MOSs listed in his personnel records were “Cover MOSs” to protect the identity of the real work he was doing in the Special Forces.

4.	He transferred to Fort Campbell, KY, then deployed to Vietnam, where he was assigned to a Long Range Reconnaissance Special Forces A-Team.  While assigned to the A-Team, he was wounded by an enemy mortar or artillery round during a firefight at the team’s base camp, while he was dragging 2 wounded comrades to a waiting helicopter.

5.	He was transferred to a total of nine different hospitals or aid stations during the course of treatment he received for his injuries.  He further states that he was wounded “directly or indirectly” a minimum of 26 times, not including effects of Agent Orange.

6.	He held a TOP SECRET security clearance and had direct interface with security personnel at the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In support of his application, the applicant has submitted his DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records) with a three page addendum and a three page letter of explanation.  In addition, he has provided 27 pages of copies of correspondence to include copies of letters to the President, the Secretary of Defense, Members of Congress and personnel in various government agencies.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 1966 for three years and requested Infantry and Airborne training.

The applicant completed Basic Combat, Infantry, and Airborne training, then reported to Fort Bragg for Special Forces Training.  There is no record of him completing Special Forces training and there are no orders or entries in his military personnel records that indicate he was ever awarded a Special Forces MOS.  The applicant was then assigned to Germany where, according to his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), he performed duties as a Light Truck Driver.

The applicant was then reassigned to Fort Campbell where he served in MOS 11C2P (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman) with the 501st Infantry.  The unit deployed to Southeast Asia and arrived in Vietnam on 13 December 1967.

DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Evidence and Duty Status) shows that the applicant was wounded on 29 December 1967.  The examining physician states that the patient (applicant) stated that he had been “hit by short round from friendly fire.”  In the commander’s section of the form (Block 30), the original verbiage stated that the applicant had been on a search and destroy mission and that he had been hit by fragments from a 4.2 mortar round.  This statement was corrected to read “training” mission, instead of search and destroy, and to “short” 4.2 mortar round instead of 4.2 mortar round.

DA Form 8-118 (Medical Board Proceedings) shows that the applicant was transferred from the US Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Valley Forge General Hospital, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania on 10 April 1968.  A Medical Evaluation Board convened at Valley Forge General Hospital on 25 March 1969. Item 19 of the board proceedings indicates the applicant was “hit by shrapnel from hostile explosive device on 29 December 1967 in the RVN.”

The applicant’s DD Form 214, which is authenticated in his own hand, shows that he was medically retired for permanent disability on 3 June 1969 after completing three years and five months of active federal service.  He was retired in pay grade E-4 and possessed MOS 11C2P (Infantry Indirect Fire Crewman) at the time of his retirement.  His DD Form 214 further shows that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Parachutist Badge and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Pistol Component Bars.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records that show he was awarded MOS 91S or 93S.  His DA Form 20 shows that he trained in MOS 91B3 but was never awarded the MOS.  The DA Form 8-118, also verified and signed in the applicant’s own hand, lists his primary MOS as 11B2P and his secondary MOS as 11C2P.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows his MOS as 11C2P.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records that show he was promoted to grade E-5.  The DA Form 8-118 shows his rank as “Sp4.”  His DD Form 214 shows his retirement rank as “Sp4(P)” and his grade as E-4.

Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), dated 24 March 1965 with changes 1 through 47, governed the promotion of enlisted personnel at the time of the applicant’s service.  The regulation specified that the underlying concept of the Army promotion system was to promote the best qualified individual and to recognize outstanding individuals with great potential for leadership or increased responsibility in their chosen fields.  The regulation delegated promotion authority to pay grades E-5 and E-6 to field grade commanders of any organization which is authorized a commander in the grade of lieutenant colonel or higher.  Temporary promotions to pay grades E-4 through E-7 were made based on quota allocations which required recommendation by the unit commander and promotion eligibility based on time in grade, time in service, the proper MOS, a score of 110 or higher on the latest primary MOS test, assignment in the next lower pay grade than that of the unit position vacancy, physical qualification, and completion of eighth grade or GED equivalent for promotion to E-5.  The recommendation for promotion could be disapproved at any level and returned, and waiver of certain promotion eligibility requirements was allowed.  Eligible soldiers were considered by a local selection board comprised of at least three voting members which could select sufficient personnel for promotion to fill authorized position vacancies projected in the unit for a two-month period.  The soldiers selected for promotion were placed on a lineal promotion list based on the number of points received from the promotion board and were promoted based on vacancies in the unit for which they qualified.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Silver Star and the applicant did not provide a copy of orders or an award certificate in support of his claim for this award.  Block 24 (Awards, Decorations, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 does not show award of the Silver Star.  Block 41 (Awards and Decorations) of his DA Form 20 does not show award of the Silver Star.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy.  The required gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the applicant did not provide a copy of orders or an award certificate in support of his claim for this award.  His DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 do not show award of the Bronze Star Medal.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded in time of war for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Purple Heart and the applicant did not provide a copy of orders or an award certificate in support of his claim for this award.  His DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 do not show award of the Purple Heart.  In addition, block 40 (Wounds) of his DA Form 20 does not show any wounds received and the applicant’s name is not listed on the Vietnam Casualty Roster.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart 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 must have required treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and the applicant did not provide a copy of orders or a certificate in support of his claim for this badge.  His DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 do not show award of the Combat Infantryman Badge.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Combat Infantryman Badge is awarded to infantry officers and to enlisted and warrant officer persons who have an infantry MOS.  They must have served in active ground combat while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size.  Battle participation credit is not sufficient; the infantry unit must have been in contact with the enemy and the soldier must have been personally present and under fire during such ground combat.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Expert Infantryman Badge and the applicant did not provide a copy of orders or a certificate in support of his claim for this badge.  His DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 do not show award of the Expert Infantryman Badge.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, sets forth requirements for award of the Expert Infantryman Badge.  Award of the Expert Infantryman Badge requires that an individual must have satisfactorily completed the prescribed proficiency tests while assigned or attached to an infantry unit of at least battalion size.  To be eligible for testing and award of the Expert Infantryman Badge, a soldier must be in an active Army status and must have an infantry or Special Forces specialty.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Combat Medical Badge and the applicant did not provide a copy of orders or a certificate in support of his claim for this badge.  His DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 do not show award of the Combat Medical Badge.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Combat Medical Badge is awarded to medical department personnel (colonel and below) who are assigned or attached to a medical unit of company or smaller size that is organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size which is engaged in active ground combat.  Battle participation credit is not sufficient; the infantry unit must have been in contact with the enemy and the soldier must have been personally present and under fire during such ground combat.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Expert Field Medical Badge and the applicant did not provide a copy of orders or a certificate in support of his claim for this badge.  His DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 do not show award of the Expert Field Medical Badge.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, sets forth requirements for the Expert Field Medical Badge.  Award of the Expert Field Medical Badge requires that an individual must have satisfactorily completed the prescribed proficiency tests.  The basic eligibility criteria includes: (1) officers must be assigned or detailed to an Army Medical Department (AMEDD) corps; (2) warrant officers must have an AMEDD primary military occupational specialty (MOS) controlled by the Surgeon General; and (3) enlisted personnel must have an AMEDD primary MOS (this includes all MOS in CMF 91 as well as MOS 76J and 94F).  Eligible personnel must be on active duty or assigned to a troop program unit in the Reserve component unit or an AMEDD mobilization augmentation agency.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows award of the Vietnam Service Medal but does not show campaign credit, or service star eligibility, for the periods the applicant served in Vietnam.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, authorizes award of a bronze service star, based on qualifying service, for each campaign listed in Appendix B of this regulation and states that authorized bronze service stars will be worn on the appropriate service medal.  The appendix shows that the applicant is entitled to wear one bronze service star for the Vietnam Counter Offensive, Phase III campaign.

There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Prisoner of War Medal and the applicant did not provide evidence in support of his claim for this award.  There is no evidence that the applicant was a prisoner of war or held in captivity during an armed conflict.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Prisoner of War Medal.  The regulation states that the Prisoner of War Medal was authorized on 8 November 1985 and is awarded to individuals who in past armed conflicts were taken prisoner or held captive.

There are no entries in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Overseas Service Ribbon and the applicant did not provide evidence in support of his claim for this award.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 shows that the Overseas Service Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981.  The regulation states, in pertinent part, that effective 1 August 1981, all members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve in an active Reserve status are eligible for the award for successful completion of overseas tours.  The award may be awarded retroactively to those personnel who were credited with a normal overseas tour completion before 1 August 1981 provided they had an Active Army status on or after 1 August 1981 and the overseas service is not recognized with another U.S. service medal.  Numerals are used to denote the second and subsequent awards of the Overseas Service Ribbon.

There are no entries in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) and the applicant did not provide evidence in support of his claim for this award.  His DD Form 214 and DA Form 20 do not show award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).  This medal was awarded by the Government of Vietnam 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.  Qualifying service outside the geographical limits of the Republic of Vietnam required the individual to provide 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 to wounds resulting from hostile action were entitled to award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board considered the applicant’s request to correct his military personnel records to show award of MOS 91S and MOS 93S.  The Board noted that the applicant trained in MOS 91B3S (Medical Aidman, Special Forces)  but there is no indication that he completed the training and he was never awarded the MOS. Further, the applicant has not provided copies of orders awarding him MOS 91S or 93S.  In the absence of evidence that the applicant was awarded MOS 91S or MOS 93S by competent military authority, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence upon which to award either MOS in this case.

2.  The Board considered the applicant’s request to correct his military personnel records to show retirement in grade E-5.  The Board noted that the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows a rank of SP4(P) in block 5a; however, the pay grade in block 5b shows E-4 and the applicant has not provided copies of orders promoting him to E-5.  In the absence of evidence that the applicant was promoted to grade E-5, the Board determined that there is no basis to correct his records to show he was promoted to sergeant/pay grade E-5.

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Silver Star and the documents submitted in support of his request.  The Board noted that there is no evidence that the applicant was awarded, or recommended for award, of the Silver Star.  In the absence of general orders awarding him the Silver Star or an approved recommendation for award of, the Silver Star, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence upon which to award the Silver Star in this case.

4. The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Bronze Star Medal and the documents submitted in support of his request.  The Board noted that there is no evidence that the applicant was awarded, or recommended for award, of the Bronze Star Medal.  In the absence of general orders awarding him the Bronze Star Medal or an approved recommendation for award of, the Bronze Star Medal, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence upon which to award the Bronze Star Medal in this case.

5.  The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Purple Heart and the documents submitted in support of his request.  The Board noted that there is no evidence in his service personnel records that the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart or wounded as a result of hostile action.  The Board also noted the examining physician’s note on the DA Form 2173 that the patient (applicant) stated he was “hit by short round from friendly fire.”  The Board further noted that the applicant’s commander indicated that the applicant had been wounded in a training mission as a result of fragments from a short 4.2 mm mortar round.  The Board noted the comment on the DA Form 8-118, indicating that the applicant had been “hit by shrapnel from hostile explosive device.”  However, absent any other corroborating evidence, the Board determined that there is no basis on which to justify award of the Purple Heart in this case.

6.  The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Combat Infantryman Badge and the documents submitted in support of his request.  The Board determined that there is no evidence that the applicant was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge.  The Board noted that the applicant was assigned to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size, from 13 December 1967 to 29 December 1967; however, there is no evidence that he was assigned to the unit while it was engaged in active ground combat or that he participated in ground combat.  In the absence of evidence that the applicant was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence upon which to award the Combat Infantryman Badge in this case.

7.  The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Expert Infantryman Badge and the documents submitted in support of his request.  The Board determined that there is no evidence that the applicant was awarded the Expert Infantryman Badge.  In the absence of special orders showing he was awarded the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Board determined that there is no basis to correct his records to show award of the Expert Infantryman Badge in this case.

8.  The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Combat Medical Badge and the documents submitted in support of his request.  The Board determined there is no evidence that he was awarded the Combat Medical Badge.  The Board also noted that the applicant was not assigned to a medical unit of company or smaller size that was organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size which was engaged in active ground combat.  In the absence of evidence that the applicant was assigned to a medical unit of company or smaller size that was organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size which was engaged in active ground combat, the Board determined that there is insufficient evidence upon which to award the Combat Medical Badge in this case.

9.  The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Expert Field Medical Badge and the documents submitted in support of his request.  The Board determined that there is no evidence that he was awarded the Expert Field Medical Badge.  In the absence of special orders showing he was awarded the Expert Field Medical Badge, the Board determined that there is no basis to correct his records to show award of the Expert Field Medical Badge in this case.

10.  The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Vietnam Service Medal.  The Board noted that the applicant has been awarded the Vietnam Service Medal; however, his records do not show entitlement to campaign stars.  The Board further noted that the applicant is entitled to one bronze campaign star to be affixed to the Vietnam Service Medal and determined that his records should be corrected administratively.

11. The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Prisoner of War Medal.  The Board determined that there is no evidence which shows that he was awarded the Prisoner of War Medal.  In the absence of evidence that the applicant was awarded the Prisoner of War Medal, or was a prisoner of war or held captive in an armed conflict, the Board determined that there is no basis to correct his records to show award of the Prison of War Medal in this case.

12. The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Overseas Service Ribbon.  The Board noted that the applicant was not on active duty subsequent to 1 August 1981; thus, he is ineligible for award of the Overseas Service Ribbon.

13.  The Board considered the applicant’s request for award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) and the documents submitted in support of his request.  The Board noted that the applicant was evacuated from Vietnam, as a result of injuries, prior to completing six months of service there; however, the Board noted that the injuries incurred were not a result of hostile action.  The Board determined that the applicant does not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960).

14.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. 

15.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

NOTE:  The Board requests that the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), Support Division, St. Louis, administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show that he was awarded one bronze service star for wear on his Vietnam Service Medal.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___mvt __  ____fne_  ___ena __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082632	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030703	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.