RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 AUGUST 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001572 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. Paul Smith Chairperson Ms. Yolanda Maldonado Member Mr. Leonard Hassell Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests award of the Purple Heart and two awards of the Meritorious Unit Commendation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his August 2004 Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision confirms his entitlement to the Purple Heart. He notes the rating decision specifically states that while he was in Cam Ranh Bay he performed guard duty at his depot, that his area was hit with rockets, mortars, and small arms fire throughout his tour of duty in Vietnam, that he reported smashing his knees while jumping for cover from the attacks, and that he subsequently underwent surgery on his left knee as a result of his injury while under attack. 3. The applicant also notes that information obtained from an internet web site confirmed that his unit, the 32nd Medical Depot, formally known as the 32nd Medical Logistics Battalion was awarded two Meritorious Unit Commendations. He stated his tour of duty in Vietnam occurred between August 1970 and July 1971. 4. The applicant provides a copy of his 2004 Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision, information from the internet web site which shows information concerning the 32nd Medical Logistics Battalion, and documents showing his evacuation from Vietnam in May 1971 as a result of his knee condition. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Records available to the Board indicate the applicant was inducted and entered active duty on 24 July 1969. 2. A statement authored by the applicant in 1971 indicates that during basic training the applicant fell to his knees during a 150 yard man carry and that in October 1969, while at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he bent down to pick up a big pot and when he tried to stand back up the knee cracked and snapped. He indicated he was given 10 days of light duty for the pain in his knee. 3. A 1971 statement of medical examination and duty status confirmed the applicant was treated for a knee injury at Fort Dix, New Jersey while undergoing basic training in August 1969. His service medical records confirm he was treated for knee pain in November 1969 while at Fort Bragg. 4. On 24 August 1970 the applicant was assigned to 32nd Medical Depot in Vietnam as an Optical Lab Specialist. His service medical records note he sought medical treatment on 3 September 1970 for intermittent locking and cracking of his left knee which he had been experiencing for about a year and which was attributed to his knee injury during advanced individual training. 5. According to an entry on the applicant's Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Personnel Record), he departed Vietnam in May 1971. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), conducted in June 1971 notes the applicant underwent surgery on his left knee in Vietnam in February 1971 and that he was admitted to the Naval Hospital, St. Albans, New York on 19 May 1971 for continued treatment. There was no indication in the MEB summary the applicant's knee condition was related to, or incurred as a result of hostile action while in Vietnam. The MEB recommended referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 6. An informal PEB convened on 2 August 1971 at Valley Forge General Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania. The PEB concluded the applicant's left knee condition was such that it rendered him unfit for continued service and recommended he be separated with severance pay rated at 20 percent. The PEB also noted the applicant's disability did not result from injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict. The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived his entitlement to a formal hearing. 7. On 19 August 1971 the findings and recommendation of the PEB were approved. The approval document noted the applicant's knee injury occurred in 1969 while at Fort Dix, New Jersey. 8. On 16 November 1971 the applicant was discharged. His separation document does not reflect entitlement to the Purple Heart or to any Meritorious Unit Commendations. 9. In 2004 the applicant was granted a 100 percent service connected disability rating by the Department of Veterans Affairs for posttraumatic stress disorder. As noted by the applicant, the rating decision recorded that the applicant had related that he smashed his knees while jumping for cover from attacks while in Vietnam. 10. The applicant's name was not among a list of individuals reported as combat casualties during the Vietnam War. 11. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) 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 by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. 12. U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided, in pertinent part, for award of the Purple Heart. The regulation stated that authority to award the Purple Heart was delegated to hospital commanders. Further, it directed that all personnel treated and released within 24 hours will be awarded the Purple Heart by the organization to which the individual is assigned. Personnel requiring hospitalization in excess of 24 hours or evacuation from Vietnam will be awarded the Purple Heart directly by the hospital commander rendering treatment. 13. A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) notes the applicant’s unit was credited with participating in one designated campaign (Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VII) during the applicant’s period of assignment. One bronze service star on the Vietnam Service Medal, which is recorded on his separation document, should reflect his campaign participation. 14. Although the same pamphlet does confirm his unit was awarded two Meritorious Unit Commendations while in Vietnam, one of the awards recognized the period 1 May 1969 to 30 April 1970, while the other recognized the period 1 May 1970 to 31 December 1971. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for the permanent award of unit commendations only to individuals who were assigned to the unit during the period being recognized by the unit award. 15. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 also provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm to all individuals who served in Vietnam between 20 July 1965 and 28 March 1973 in a unit which was subordinate to Headquarters, United States Army Vietnam. The applicant’s unit was such a unit. 16. Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time when the service member was discharged, required that throughout a qualifying period of service for award of the Good Conduct Medal the enlisted person must have had all “excellent” conduct and efficiency ratings and no convictions by a court-martial. 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. With the publication of the new Army Regulation 672-5-1, in 1974, the requirement for all excellent conduct and efficiency ratings was dropped and an individual was required to show that he/she willingly complied with the demands of the military environment, had been loyal and obedient, and faithfully supported the goals of his organization and the Army. Today, Army Regulation 600-8-22, which replaced Army Regulation 672-5-1, notes that there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal and disqualification must be justified. Current practice requires that the commander provide written notice of nonfavorable consideration and permits the individual to respond. 17. The applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his military service were excellent, and he had no record of any disciplinary actions or incidents of misconduct. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Although information in the applicant's 2004 Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision suggests the applicant's knee condition was the result of hostile action while in Vietnam, the medical evidence available to the Board suggests otherwise. The applicant's service medical records, his disability processing documents, and a statement he authored in 1971 all confirm his knee injury was not the result of hostile action while in Vietnam but rather stemmed from an injury incurred while undergoing training prior to arriving in Vietnam. 2. In order to justify correction of a military record, as it pertains to an award of the Purple Heart, the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement. 3. Additionally, while the applicant's unit in Vietnam may have been awarded two awards of the Meritorious Unit Commendation, because he was assigned to the unit during only one period recognized by a unit award he is entitled to only one award. It would be appropriate to correct his records to reflect that one Meritorious Unit Commendation. 4. The evidence also confirms the applicant is entitled to one bronze service star on his Vietnam Service Medal and a Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm. His records should be corrected accordingly. 5. The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal on 16 November 1971. 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 24 July 1969 through 16 November 1971. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ___PS __ ___YM __ ___LH __ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected: a. by showing he is entitled to one Meritorious Unit Commendation and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm; b. by showing he is entitled to one bronze service star on his Vietnam Service Medal; and c. by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal. 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to award of the Purple Heart and to a second Meritorious Unit Commendation. ______ Paul Smith________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001572 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20050830 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION PARTIAL GRANT REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 107.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.