ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 March 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170015360 APPLICANT REQUESTS: award of the Purple Heart and a personal hearing before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Internet printout titled “Attacks on Camp Radcliff – 1968” * Self-authored letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) * Three witness statements * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * Copy of DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * Letter to the National Personnel Records Center FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states he was injured in Vietnam and he has three witness statements attesting to his injury. He did not go to a field hospital (which he regrets) but several others in his unit did. His injury was small and his parents back in the States were worried. He decided it was best to decline the award. His cousin had three Purple Hearts. He feared his family would be terribly worried. One of those who were wounded during this attack was XXXXX . He understands that this Soldier is getting full benefits. If the Board could find his name , that should be the incident he is referring to. He knows that this individual lived in Rochester, NY. 3. Review of the applicant’s service record shows: 1. a. He was inducted into the Army of the United States on 23 May 1967. He was honorably discharged on 25 May 1967 to enlist in the Regular Army. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 May 1967. b. He served in Vietnam from 19 October 1967 to 22 May 1969. He was assigned to 568th Signal Company, 43rd Signal Battalion, 1st Signal Brigade. c. He was honorably released from active duty on 25 May 1970. He was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal with 5 bronze service stars, Vietnam Campaign Medal, 3 overseas service bars, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M14- and M-16). 4. There is no evidence of record in several typical sources that shows he was injured or wounded as a result of hostile action or that he was awarded the Purple Heart: a. Item 40 (Wounds) of his official DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show a combat wound or injury and item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of this form does not list the Purple Heart as an authorized award. b. His name is not shown on the Vietnam casualty roster, a compilation of most of those who were wounded in Vietnam that is commonly used to verify eligibility for the Purple Heart. c. His records do not contain an official Army notification or a Western Union telegram notifying his next of kin of an injury. This was a normal notification procedure during the Vietnam War. d. A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System maintained by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, which is an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973, failed to reveal orders showing he was awarded the Purple Heart. e. Some of his medical records are available for review with this case. However, the available health record (including Chronological Record of Medical Care, Separation Physical, and Report of Medical History) do not reflect an injury as a result of hostile action or treatment for such injury. 5. He provides: a. Self-authored letter, dated 23 March 2017 to the VA. He stated he served with the 586th Signal Company, 43rd Signal Battalion, 1st Signal Brigade, in An Khe, Vietnam during the years of 1967-1969. They were attacked with mortars one night during that period. He sustained a battle injury at that time. Other Soldiers were also wounded in that attack. First Sergeant (1SG) XXX began sending men to the field hospital. He wanted the applicant to go but he stated his wound would heal on its own. a. The 1SG talked to him about putting his name on the list to receive a Purple Heart. At the time, he was more concerned about his family back home being upset by the news of the shelling than his injury, so he turned down his offer. The experience was very scary to this Soldier and he just wanted it to go away. He had no idea what it would mean to him at this present time. The wound on his arm did take several weeks to heal and he had a scar for about 5 years. He knows it is late in his life to request this, and the Board only has his word to base its decision. He has contacted three of his fellow Soldiers who recall the incident and hopes the Board would accept their statements with his and make the decision to award him this Purple Heart. One of these Soldiers was their company clerk, XXXX, who had first-hand knowledge of the offer by the 1SG. b. Internet printout titled “Attacks on Camp Radcliff – 1968.” The dates “Feb 5” and “Oct 30” are circled with a hand-written entry that reads “Think it was possibly one of the above two attacks. This was 50 years ago.” c. Copy of a DA Form 20 with multiple hand-written entries pertaining honorable separation, reentry code, and in item 40 (Wounds) it reads “2-inch cut across left arm below elbow.” The date block is blank. d. Statement from Mr. XXXX, who states he was stationed with the applicant during a direct attack on their field post in 1968-69 tour of duty. The applicant was grazed by shrapnel on his arm from a heavy mortar attack as many of them were trying to get to their bunkers for cover and retaliation against the enemy. He also sustained injury to his own knees, shins, and wrist from falling over a good-sized boulder while trying to flee to the safety of the command bunker. There were quite a few of them injured during the attack and many of their comrades went to the field hospital for medical attention for their injuries. The applicant was asked by their 1SG if needed to go to the field hospital, but he felt it would heal in its own time, because they were young proud Soldiers and felt their injuries were not significant at the time. the 1SG wanted to award a Purple Heart to the applicant on an immediate basis but he refused. Now, as the years have crept upon them all, the Purple Heart should have been awarded as his injury was significant enough to warrant his performance and honor in helping to protect his country. e. Statement from Mr. XXXX , who states while stationed in Vietnam, his Company Headquarters (586th Signal Company) came under enemy mortar fire in March 1968. The applicant was hit by shrapnel and wounded at that time. Although he did not seek the Purple Heart at the time, he was still deserving. f. Statement from Mr. XXXXX , who rendered a statement similar/identical to Mr. XXXX. 6. In accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), the criteria for an award of the Purple Heart requires the submission of substantiating evidence to verify the injury/wound was the result of hostile action, the injury/wound must have required 1. treatment by personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. He has not satisfied all three conditions. 7. There is no evidence the applicant received the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. There also is no evidence the applicant was disqualified by his chain of command from receiving the Army Good Conduct Medal. Records do not show indiscipline or lost time. His records do not contain any adverse information and he received conduct and efficiency ratings of “excellent” throughout his service. He was eligible for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) based on completion of qualifying service from 23 May 1967 through 22 May 1970. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting evidence, the Board found that relief was warranted. One outcome discussed was that there was not enough evidence to support the Purple Heart. However, based upon the witness statements and the injury noted on his DA Form 20, the Board found by a totality of the circumstances that awarding the Purple Heart was warranted. Additionally, although not specifically asked for by the applicant, the Board found that the applicant was eligible and should be awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : X X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: * awarding him the Purple Heart * adding to his DD Form 214 ending on 25 May 1970 the Purple Heart * awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for service during the period 23 May 1967 through 22 May 1970 (3 years from date of entry) * adding to his DD Form 214 ending on 25 May 1970 the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) 2. Additionally, the Board noted the administrative notes below and recommend that adding the ARCOM as reflected should be granted to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. X CHAIRPERSON Signed by I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): A review of the applicant's records shows he is entitled to additional awards not listed on his DD Form 214. As a result, amend the DD Form 214 with an effective date of 25 May 1970 by adding the Army Commendation Medal issued by Headquarters, 1st Signal Brigade, Vietnam, by General Orders Number 1320, on 18 June 1969. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained in action against an enemy or as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment by medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. Examples of enemy-related injuries include injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap; injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire; and/or concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions. 2. U.S. Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) stated the authority to award the Purple Heart was delegated to hospital commanders. It directed that all personnel treated and released within 24 hours would be awarded the Purple Heart by the organization to which the individual was assigned. Personnel requiring hospitalization in excess of 24 hours or evacuation from Vietnam would be awarded the Purple Heart directly by the hospital commander rendering treatment. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. a. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. b. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.