| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for the Purple Heart (PH).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect that he never received the PH to which he was entitled based on being wounded or injured in action in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the published Proceedings, Docket Number AR2000040903, dated 12 September 2000 (Copy Attached).
The applicant provided through his Member of Congress (MOC) a decision rendered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Houston, Texas that determined that a scar he had on the cornea of his left eye was a service connected disability and military clinical records of treatment that confirm he was treated for an eye injury he received in the RVN on 10 August 1969.
Clinical records of treatment provided by the applicant confirm that on 14 August 1969 he was treated in the 14th Aviation Battalion dispensary for a small corneal abrasion to his left eye that he received as a result of being hit in the eye with a small piece of wire on 10 August 1969. These documents also show that he was also seen for follow-up evaluation and treatment for this injury on the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th of August 1969. However, the medical treatment records prepared during these visits contain no entries that refer to his eye injury being combat related or the result of any enemy action.
On 20 June 2000, the Houston, Texas regional office of the VA published a letter that indicated that they had rendered a decision on the applicant’s claim for compensation. They decided that the scar on the cornea of his left eye was service connected but that it was less than 10 percent disabling. The letter further indicated that by law the VA cannot pay for disabilities that are less than
10 percent disabling.
As indicated in the previous decisional document published by this Board, the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains no suggestion that he was ever entitled to or awarded the PH during his active duty tenure. Further, the OMPF gives no indication that he was ever wounded or injured as a result of enemy action.
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature confirms that he was honorably separated on
27 August 1971 after completing a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 28 days of active military service.
Block 24 of the DD Form 214 contained a list of the awards and decorations the applicant earned during his active duty tenure. The PH is not listed as an earned award in this block and there is no indication that the applicant addressed this omission or his PH entitlement at that time.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards. Paragraph 2-8 contains the regulatory guidance pertaining to awarding the PH. It states, in pertinent part, that the PH is awarded to any member wounded or killed while engaged in action against an armed enemy or hostile force.
Paragraph 9-8b (2) defines a wound as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent while engaged in action against the enemy. It also specifically states that in order to support awarding a member the PH, it is necessary to establish that the wound, for which the award is being made, required treatment by a medical officer. This treatment must be supported by records of medical treatment for the wound or injury received in action, and 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. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
2. While the applicant has provided additional documents that clearly establish that the VA has determined his eye injury was a service connected disability and that he received and was treated for this eye injury in the RVN, they do not provide confirmation that the eye injury was combat related or as the result of enemy action.
3. In the opinion of the Board, the fact that the applicant received medical treatment for the eye injury in question by military medical personnel in the RVN made it even more likely that had this injury entitled him to receive a PH, this fact would have been established and made a matter of official record in his OMPF at that time.
4. Given the lack of any indication in the applicant’s military medical records or in his OMPF that he was awarded or entitled to the PH, the Board is compelled to presume that his eye injury was not combat related or received as a result of enemy action. Thus, lacking convincing evidence to the contrary, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support awarding him the PH at this time.
5. 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.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__MKP___ __KAK__ __RTD__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058318 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | AR2000040903 |
| DATE BOARDED | 2001/10/02 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1971/08/27 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | OS Returnee |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 61 | 107.0015 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003089530C070403
The applicant states, in effect, that he was wounded while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) in February 1968. The evidence of record provides no confirmation that the applicant was ever wounded in action or that he was ever treated for a wound or injury received in action. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned is entitled to 4 bronze service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000155C070205
The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any orders, or other documents indicating that he was ever wounded in action, or that he was recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while he was serving on active duty. The applicant's MPRJ is void of any orders, or other documents showing that he was ever recommended for, or awarded the PH by proper authority during his tenure on active duty, and it contains no medical treatments records that indicate he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018524
Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations). The regulation stipulates that in order to support award of the PH, there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, that it required treatment by military medical personnel, and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. Absent any evidence of record or independent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007063C080407
However, by regulation, in order to support award of the PH there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, and the regulation only authorizes a "V" Device with a BSM that is awarded for heroism. The evidence of record shows that based on his assignment to Company A, 15th Medical Battalion, the applicant is entitled to the MUC, which is already documented in his record and separation document. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008365
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). All documents and orders in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), which include a DA Form 1999 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 30 September 1975; Department of the Army, United States Army Military Personnel Center, Letter Orders Number D 11-351(disability retirement orders), dated 25 November 1975; and the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on 10 December 1975, all list...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009574
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Therefore, it would be appropriate to award the applicant the PH and to add it to his DD Form 214 at this time. ____________X___________ CHAIRPERSON 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003364
The first sergeant referred him to an administrative office, and an officer explained that his unit in Vietnam was waiting to receive his records and orders for awards from Advisory Team 75. He does not describe any injuries the applicant may have received. * on 13 February 1968, he was seen by the same Medical Section for symptoms of possible neuroma (commonly known as a pinched nerve) in his right arm secondary to an injury he had received 3 years earlier * in March 1968, he was seen at...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050011071
The applicant states, in effect, that he received a fragment wound while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) that entitles him to the PH, and that he should have been awarded the CIB based on his combat experience. The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he served in the RVN from 30 April 1970 through 14 June 1970. Absent any evidence (PH awards orders, eye-witness statements, medical treatment documents confirming his foot wound was combat related etc),...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014952
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 June 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070014952 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting reconsideration of his request for the Purple Heart because his medical record did not show that he was treated for a wound during his tour in the Republic of Vietnam. The applicant provides a medical record, dated 7 June 1969 in support of this application.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019780
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in item 41 (Awards and Decorations). ___________X______________ CHAIRPERSON 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.