MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 1 August 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002067082


         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
Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		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: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by awarding him the Purple Heart (PH). He is also making an initial request for award of the Air Medal.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he previously submitted an application requesting award of the PH for a hand injury he received while serving in the Republic of Vietnam. The Board denied that request because he did not submit any supporting documentation showing that he had been treated in the field for his injury. He states he is now submitting a statement from the medic who treated him in the field for his injury. He states that the injury occurred when a fellow soldier stepped on a booby trap and he was struck in the right hand by flying shrapnel. He further states that the injury was minor and did not require hospitalization. The applicant also states that everyone in his unit except him received an Air Medal.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR1999034865) on 9 February 2000.

The applicant submits a letter, dated 17 December 2001, from a fellow soldier (Major, Army United States, Retired) who served in the same battalion with him in Vietnam, and a letter, dated 1 June 2001, from the medic (who is now a Major, United States Army Reserve, Retired) who treated him for an alleged shrapnel wound to his right hand in Vietnam. He also submits the 3^rd Battalion, 187^th Infantry, Daily Staff Journal and Duty Officer's Log, dated 20 July 1968,which shows that on 20 July 1968, a soldier set off a booby trap; Special Orders Number 246 reassigning him to Letterman General Hospital, San Francisco, California; Special Orders Number 251 assigning him to the US Army Hospital, Fort Mac Arthur, California; and medical records that reflect he was transferred from Vietnam to San Diego, California, for further treatment of his infected right hand. The medical records show that it was approximately three months after the alleged wounding when the applicant sought treatment for a swollen right hand. He was admitted to the hospital in the Republic of Vietnam for treatment of an abscess of the right hand and later transferred to the United States for further treatment. Examination of the right hand revealed a nondraining sinus opening in the inter-phalangeal space between the 3^rd and 4^th digits of the right hand. There is no evidence in the medical records that the infection was the result of an earlier shrapnel wound.

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that require Board consideration.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart (PH) is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that: (1) the wound was the result of hostile action; (2) the wound required medical treatment; and (3) the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.

U.S Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided, in pertinent part, guidelines for award of the Air Medal (AM). It established that passenger personnel who did not participate in an air assault were not eligible for the award based upon sustained operations. It defined terms and provided guidelines for the award based upon the number and types of missions or hours. Twenty-five Category I missions (air assault and equally dangerous missions) and accrual of a minimum of 25 hours of flight time while engaged in Category I missions was the standard established for which sustained operations were deemed worthy of recognition by an award of the Air Medal. However, the regulation was clear that these guidelines were considered only a departure point. Nothing created an entitlement to the award. There was no provision for making the award simply because an aircraft was struck by enemy fire.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR. It provides that, if a request for reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration. This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than one year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case. In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision. If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board. If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

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 carefully reviewed the medical records and other documents submitted by the applicant. There is no evidence in the applicant's medical records or other documents, nor has the applicant provided any official documentation to show that his alleged wound was the result of shrapnel from a hostile action; that this wound required medical treatment; and that the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.
2. The only mention of a medical problem related to the applicant's right hand occurred some 3 months after his alleged wounding. At that time, he reported to medical personnel with an infection in his right hand. There is no proof to tie this event to the alleged wounding incident.

3. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant meets the requirements for award of the Air Medal.

4. 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.

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

__sac___ __mhm___ __rks___ DENY APPLICATION




         Carl W. S. Chun

Director, Army Board for Correction
         of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067082
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020801
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19690724
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	Deny
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	107.0015
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.