APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Award of the Purple Heart.  He states he was “shot in [his] right leg” in Vietnam but “the military never recognized [his] injury....”  In support of his request he provides a statement from another individual who claims to have witnessed the injury but was not a member of the applicant’s unit.

PURPOSE:  To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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

He entered active duty in 1965 and served in Vietnam between 1966 and 1967.  On 10 October 1968 he was released from active duty.  His DD Form 214, which he authenticated, does not list the Purple Heart as an authorized decoration.

He reenlisted in October 1969 and remained on active duty until his retirement in October 1986 in pay grade E-6.  The Purple Heart is not listed as an authorized award on any of the DD Forms 214 issued during the applicant’s military service, nor is it listed on his DA Form 20 (enlisted qualification record) or DA Form 2-1 (personnel qualification record).  Additionally, item 40 (wounds) on the applicant’s DA Form 20, which he last authenticated in 1973, is blank.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Purple Heart is awarded for wounds 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.  This is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which confirms he was wounded as a result of hostile action.  Several attempts to obtain his VA records which may contain copies of his service medical records were unsuccessful.

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

DISCUSSION:  The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 31 October 1986, the date his discharge.  The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 31 October 1989.

The application is dated 19 November 1993 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION:  The subject application was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

BOARD VOTE:

                      EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

                      GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                      CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION




		Karl F. Schneider
		Acting Director