| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records to show award of the Purple Heart.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was wounded during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and was treated by a medic; however, there is no mention of this in his records. In support of his application, he submits an undated letter of explanation; an X-Ray Report, dated 13 March 1968; an eyewitness statement, dated 21 October 2000; a letter, dated 18 October 2001; from the applicant to the Review Board Agency in St. Louis, Missouri; and a VA Rating Decision, dated
10 October 2001.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 26 February 1966 and was ordered to active duty on 7 August 1966. He served as a radio operator in Vietnam from 10 March 1967 through 9 March 1968 and was released from active duty on 6 August 1968.
The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge), which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Purple Heart as an authorized award.
There is no evidence in the applicant’s service personnel records that he was awarded the Purple Heart or was wounded as a result of hostile action.
His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show entitlement to the Purple Heart and item 40 (Wounds) on his DA Form 20 is blank. The applicant’s name does not appear on the Vietnam Casualty Roster.
The applicant provided an eyewitness statement, dated 21 October 2000, from a fellow soldier attesting that the applicant sustained a head wound in February 1968 during a fire fight in Vietnam.
The applicant provided an X-Ray Report, dated 13 March 1968, from a civilian physician which shows the entry, “Metallic foreign body in the scalp over the left frontal area. Approximately 2 x 3 mm. in size. No other unusual findings.” However, there is no evidence that this foreign body was the result of hostile action.
The applicant also provided a VA Rating Decision, dated 10 October 2001, which shows service connection for metallic foreign body left frontal area due to blast was established as directly related to military service. This condition is evaluated as 0 percent disabling in the absence of evidence showing residual disability.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound 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, 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. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he was wounded during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam and was treated by a medic. The Board also considered the X-Ray Report and the VA documentation provided in support of the applicant’s claim for award of the Purple Heart. However, there is no evidence of record which shows that the applicant was wounded or treated for wounds due to hostile action in Vietnam.
2. The applicant signed his DD Form 214 on 6 August 1968 attesting to the fact that he was not entitled to award of the Purple Heart.
3. The preponderance of evidence in this case shows the applicant was not wounded or otherwise eligible for award of the Purple Heart.
4. The Board considered the eyewitness statement provided in support of the applicant’s claim for award of the Purple Heart. However, this statement made over 32 years after the fact is not sufficient by itself as a basis for award of the Purple Heart in view of evidence of record which shows the applicant was not wounded. Therefore, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence on which to base award of the Purple Heart in this case.
5. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
6. 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
RVO____ CLA_____ JTM____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001066055 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020228 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 107.0015 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071593C070402
In support of his claim for award of the Purple Heart, the applicant provided Department of Veterans Affairs documentation which shows that service connection was granted for multiple shrapnel wounds. He states that “When Comrade [applicant’s last name] was wounded in battle, I recall that one of our Medics had administered treatment out in the field of Comrade [applicant’s last name] shrapnel wounds.” The applicant also provided an eyewitness statement, dated 28 February 2002, from a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011571
There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart or was wounded as a result of hostile action in Vietnam. However, the eyewitness statement from the medic provided by the applicant indicates the medic treated the applicant during the period 9-15 July 1966. In the absence of corroborating evidence showing he was injured as a result of hostile action in Vietnam, the eyewitness statement provided by the applicant is not sufficient as a basis...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120023010
He provides eyewitness statements from fellow Soldiers attesting the applicant ignored his own two wounds to treat wounded Soldiers on 30 June 1970. There is no evidence of record which shows he was wounded as a result of hostile action in Vietnam. Regrettably, in the absence of corroborating evidence showing he was wounded as a result of friendly fire in Vietnam, the eyewitness statements provided by the applicant are not sufficient as a basis for awarding the Purple Heart.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090821C070212
In October 1969 the applicant departed Vietnam and returned to the United States. Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative error which does not require action by the Board. The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021210
There are no orders for the Purple Heart in the applicants service personnel records. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of record which shows that the applicant was wounded as a result of hostile action in Vietnam. In the absence of orders or other evidence of record showing that the applicant was injured or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action in Vietnam, the radiology reports provided by the applicant are not sufficient as a basis for award of the Purple Heart.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000009
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show award of the Purple Heart. There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart or was wounded as a result of hostile action in Vietnam. In the absence of orders or other evidence of record showing that the applicant was injured or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action in Vietnam, the radiology report provided by the applicant is not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019403
This extract recounts the attack and lists the number of casualties, but makes no mention of the applicant by name. They each recall the attack that occurred on 3 December 1967. a. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have been treated by medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021132
The applicant, the son of a former service member (FSM), requests his father be awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received on or about 8 November 1968 in Vietnam. There is no evidence in the available records which show the FSM was awarded the Purple Heart or that he was wounded as a result of hostile action in Vietnam. There is insufficient evidence in the available record that shows the FSM was wounded as a result of hostile action in Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001817C070208
The applicant states that he had a shrapnel wound in Vietnam. In so doing, the VA noted that although his service medical records showed no evidence of a shrapnel wound, reasonable doubt was resolved in his favor that this [his wound] was a residual from a combat injury. The VA, in awarding the applicant a service connected disability for residuals [shrapnel] in his right arm, stated that his service medical records showed no evidence of a shrapnel wound, and despite this lack of evidence...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001981
The VA's Compensation and Pension Exam Hospital Summary shows that on 26 March 1969, the applicant was admitted with a chief complaint of pain at left ankle area where he had an old gunshot wound. The applicant's military service records do not contain any general orders awarding him the Purple Heart. There are no medical records available which show that the applicant was wounded or treated for wounds as a result of hostile action during his service in Vietnam.