APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be awarded the Purple Heart for injuries received in Vietnam.

APPLICANT STATES:  That in 1962 or 1963 he suffered a broken foot while in a convoy that came under attack by the enemy.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That although the applicant’s records do not specify the circumstances surrounding his injury, counsel asks that all reasonable doubt be resolved in his favor.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military personnel and medical records show:

He retired from the Army on 31 May 1973 in pay grade E-8 after completing over 20 years of active service.

His records reflect that he served a tour in Vietnam from 31 March 1962 to 20 April 1963.  On 20 October 1962, while riding in a vehicle that came to a sudden stop, he suffered a broken foot.  His medical records indicate that the injury occurred as the result of a generator sliding forward on his foot.  The injury was subsequently determined to be a broken bone in the foot which was treated by placement in a walking cast.  The record does not contain any information indicating that the injury was caused by enemy action.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, provides in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained 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.

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.  While the evidence of record shows that the applicant sustained an injury while in Vietnam, it does not show that the injury was the result of hostile enemy action.

2.  Based on the available personnel and medical records, there is no evidence that he suffered a combat related injury that would qualify him for award of the Purple Heart.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director