MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 25 April 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002069346

         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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson
Mr. George D. Paxson		Member
Mr. Charles Gainor		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: In effect, that the Purple Heart (PH) be added to his record.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was hospitalized in Vietnam in 1967 or 1968 and received a PH. This award was never added to his record or his separation document (DD Form 214). He claims that he officially received the PH, as a result of being wounded in action by an enemy grenade, and is only requesting that it be added to his records.

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

On 13 December 1967, he was inducted into the Army of the United States and entered active duty for 2 years. He completed basic training at Fort Ord, California, and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Lewis, Washington. Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty
11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) and was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).

In May 1968, he arrived in the RVN and on 9 June 1968, he was further assigned to Company A, 4^th Battalion, 3^rd Infantry Regiment, 11^th Infantry Brigade, to perform duties in MOS 11B as a light weapons infantryman. The applicant served in the RVN for only 1 month and 11 days. On 26 October 1968, he was attached to Fort MacArthur, California, and he remained in that status until
14 February 1969. During this period, he was hospitalized from 1 November 1968 through 9 February 1969.

The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) contains no entry in Item 40 (Wounds), which would indicate that the applicant was not wounded or injured in action during his active duty tenure. In addition, Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) confirms that during his active duty tenure, the applicant earned the National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal. However, it does not include the PH is the list of authorized awards contained in the record.

A Clinical Record Narrative Summary (SF 502), dated 7 February 1969, prepared by the applicant’s attending psychiatrist at Letterman General Hospital, indicates that the applicant was admitted to Letterman General Hospital on 30 January 1969, with a diagnosis of a passive-aggressive personality, after having been initially hospitalized on 1 November 1968, at the Brentwood Veterans Administrative (VA) hospital. The military history portion of this form states that the applicant was drafted on 13 December 1967, did his basic training at Fort Ord, California, and AIT at Fort Lewis, Washington, and was assigned to the RVN in May 1968. However, he returned to the Continental United States (CONUS) in September 1968, and at the time of admission to the hospital, he was assigned to Fort MacArthur, California.

The present illness portion of the SF 502 explains that the applicant was married in May 1968, and his wife had a nervous breakdown when she learned that he had been injured in the RVN. The applicant allegedly had a bullet wound to the foot with no bone involvement and in September 1968, he returned to CONUS because of his wife’s condition for the purpose of compassionate reassignment. The applicant indicated that he was considered absent without leave (AWOL) since he did not remain on base during his attachment at Fort MacArthur.

The SF 502 recommended a course of action, based on the applicant being considered a pathological personality, antisocial type, which included that he be returned to duty with a recommendation for a 90 day trial period and a further recommendation that he be separated if any further altercations with military authorities occurred. The final diagnosis rendered was antisocial personality, chronic, moderate, manifested by illegal drug abuse, impulsive behavior, multiple altercations with civilian and military law enforcement officers and inability to learn from previous experience.

There are no other medical documents on file that indicate the applicant was wounded or injured in action while serving in the RVN, or to substantiate that the alleged bullet wound to the foot referred to in the SF 502 was received in action, was treated by military medical personnel, or that treatment for this wound was made a matter of official record.

On 12 December 1969, the applicant was honorably separated at the expiration of his term of service (ETS). At the time of his separation, he had completed a total of 2 years of active military service. The DD Form 214 issued to and authenticated by the applicant on the date of his separation confirms in Item
24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) that he earned the National Defense Service Medal and Vietnam Service Medal during his active duty tenure. However, the PH is not included in the list of authorized awards contained in this item. In addition, the separation document verifies that he completed just 1 month and
11 days of service in the RVN.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and criteria 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 who has been wounded or killed in action. A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under conditions defined by this regulation. 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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that he was awarded the PH for a wound he received in action from an enemy hand grenade in the RVN. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2. By regulation, in order to support an award of a PH a member must have been wounded or injured in action, must have been treated for this wound or injury by military medical personnel, and this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

3. In this case, notwithstanding the indication in the clinical record on file that alleges that the applicant received a gunshot wound to the foot in the RVN, there are no medical or other official records to confirm that this alleged wound was the result of enemy action. Further, there is no evidence to show that the applicant was ever wounded or injured in action in the RVN or that he was awarded the PH.

4. 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.

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

JHL GDP CG DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069346
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/25
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1969/12/12
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 61	107.0015
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.