MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           24 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002081826

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	
	Mr. Frank C. Jones, II		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:  That he be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).

APPLICANT STATES:  He suffered a gunshot wound which was determined to have been incurred in line of duty.

In support of his request, he submits a DA Form 8-275-3, Clinical Record Cover Sheet, which shows the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 3 February 1966 for a gunshot wound in the back part of his leg behind the knee joint, and for a dislocated right shoulder.  (The applicant was a mess steward in Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 327th Infantry Battalion, 101st Airborne Division when he was admitted).  This form indicates that both conditions were considered to have been incurred in line of duty.  In item 3 of the form, Type of Case, the physician had to pick from three choices:  Disease, Injury, or Battle Casualty.  The physician marked “Injury.”  In item 23, Diagnoses, the applicant’s gunshot wound was classified as “Accidental injury unknown” and “Incurred as a result of hostile action.”

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 March 1954 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of cook.  He served continuously as a cook through reenlistments.

He served in Germany from 9 February 1956 to 5 February 1960.  He served in Vietnam from 12 April 1965 to 11 April 1966.  He served a second tour in Germany from 12 May 1966 to 22 September 1968.  He served a second tour in Vietnam from 17 October 1968 to 16 October 1969.  He served a third tour in Germany from 22 October 1969 to 30 September 1973.

He was honorably discharged on 30 September 1973 in pay grade E-7 and placed on the Retired List the following day.  His separation document shows that he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with 4 bronze service stars, the Vietnam Campaign Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, the National Defense Service Medal with oak leaf cluster (two awards), and the Good Conduct Medal (4th award).

The Applicant’s DA Form 20, Enlisted Qualification Record, Item 40, Wounds, is blank.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the PH 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.

In the processing of this case, the Republic of Vietnam Casualty List was reviewed by the staff of the Board.  It did not contain the applicant’s name.

Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3, Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register, shows that the applicant's unit was awarded the Meritorious Unit Citation (MUC), the Valorous Unit Citation (VUC), the Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal, FC, for a period which included the dates the applicant was assigned to that unit.  
DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  While the DA Form 8-275-3, Clinical Record Cover Sheet, shows the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 3 February 1966 for a gunshot wound in the back part of his leg behind the knee joint and for a dislocated right shoulder, this form is not contained in his military records.  However, the Board accepts its authenticity.

2.  The DA Form 8-275-3 submitted by the applicant is the only indication in his military records that he was shot, and this form contains contradictory entries.  On one hand it says that the applicant’s conditions were incurred as a result of an injury and not a battle casualty.  On the other hand it says that his conditions were incurred as a result of hostile action.

3.  Since the applicant was returned to duty with his unit, which was an infantry company under the 101st Airborne Division, it must be assumed that the unit was well versed in processing battle casualties.  This would include awarding its wounded soldiers PH’s for their wounds.  As such, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the applicant’s unit didn’t award him the PH because he was not entitled to that award.

4.  If the applicant was shot when a fellow soldier was cleaning his weapon; if the applicant were shot when a fellow soldier dropped his weapon; if the applicant was shot as a result of a ricochet from weapons qualification, he would not be entitled to the PH.  He has to show that he was shot as a result of hostile action.

5.  The preceding conclusions make it evident that there is currently insufficient documentation to warrant awarding the applicant the PH.

6.  The applicant is entitled to the MUC, the VUC, the Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal, FC.  However, the addition of these unit citations is administrative and does not required the authority of the Board.

7.  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 Army Review Boards Agency, St. Louis, Missouri, will be requested to amend the applicant’s separation document to add the MUC, the VUC, the Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal, FC.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___mkp___  ___reb__  ___fcj_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002081826	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030624	
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.