MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 02 OCTOBER 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003085494

         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
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		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: Award of the Purple Heart.

APPLICANT STATES: He was wounded in combat while in Vietnam but there was no official award ceremony. He states that he was operated on twice to repair the damage from the wound and that his Department of Veterans Affairs medical records “cover this in detail.”

In support of his request he submits an undated extract from his Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision.

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

He entered active duty on 13 February 1967 and was trained as a military policeman.

In March 1968 he arrived in Vietnam where he was assigned as a military policeman with the 1^st Military Police Company of the 1^st Infantry Division. He remained in Vietnam until March 1969 when he returned to the United States and was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey.

On 14 January 1970 the applicant was released from active duty, with an honorable characterization of service, under a program which permitted Soldiers to be released prior to their scheduled separation date in order to attend school.

Although the applicant’s separation document does reflect, among others, an award of the Army Commendation Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal, it does not reflect award of the Purple Heart. Item 40 (wounds) on his Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) is blank and the form does not reflect entitlement to the Purple Heart. The applicant authenticated his Department of the Army Form 20 on 16 September 1969 and his separation document on the day he was released from active duty.

There were no service medical records available to the Board, or provided by the applicant, and his name is not among a list of individuals reported as combat casualties during the Vietnam War.

The extract from his Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision, which was provided by the applicant in support of his request to this Board, notes that the applicant’s original claim “for multiple shrapnel wounds was denied by rating decision dated October 12, 1993.”





However, the applicant subsequently submitted a statement, dated 8 May 1998, from a Department of Veterans Affairs physician who operated on the applicant in 1970. The physician’s statement noted that the applicant “came to the hospital complaining of having broken his nose during a bombing explosion in Vietnam in 1968.” He indicated that the applicant stated that he “was hit by debris and shrapnel when a building blew up near him in Vietnam” and that as a result of the injury the applicant “was unable to breathe from the left side of his nose.” The physician noted that the applicant’s injury “was consistent with a trauma injury….”

The rating decision also notes that the applicant submitted several “buddy statements” of which one claimed to have been with the applicant when he was injured. The remaining statements merely noted that they knew the applicant had been injured but were not present when the injury occurred.

The rating decision states that “in review of the service medical records, an entrance examination dated January 31, 1967 shows the examiner noted the veteran’s nose was broken in boyhood” and that his “discharge examination dated January 31, 1970 shows only that the veteran has a nose condition noted as a history of deviated septum.” The rating decision notes that the applicant’s mother stated that her son never had a broken nose.

According to the rating decision, rhinoplasty surgery was performed at the Bronx Veterans Affairs Hospital in New York on 22 June 1970. The document indicates that the applicant reported that the injury to his nose occurred during a rocket attack.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart 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.

A review of Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 indicates that the applicant’s unit (1^st Military Police Company) was awarded a Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, while the applicant was a member of the organization. None of those awards, however, are reflected on his separation document. The pamphlet also indicates







that the applicant would have participated in five designated campaign periods (TET Counteroffensive, Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase IV, V and VI, and the TET 69 Counteroffensive). A silver service star on the Vietnam Service Medal, which is reflected on the applicant’s separation document, should record his participation in those campaigns.

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. Although the Department of Veterans Affairs has concluded that the applicant’s nose condition was the result of a service connected injury, the Board notes that there are no service medical documents which confirm that the applicant was wounded as a result of hostile action, that he required treatment by a medical officer at the time, or that the treatment was made a matter of official record.

2. The Board notes that the applicant’s entrance physical examination indicated that he had sustained a broken nose in childhood, and that his separation physical examination made no mention of his nose condition as having resulted from hostile action. He offers no explanation for the basis of that information. The applicant authenticated several documents, including his separation document and his Enlisted Qualification Record, neither of which reflected entitlement to the Purple Heart.

3. The evidence available to the Board indicates that the applicant waited until after his separation from active duty to have his nose operated on and provides no evidence that he received treatment for the alleged wound while in Vietnam.

4. Although the Board does note that the applicant provided a statement to the Department of Veterans Affairs from an individual who claims to have been with the applicant at the time of his injury, there is no evidence from any official source and no medical evidence that confirms that the applicant was wounded. In the absence of more compelling evidence, the Board concludes that the statement, rendered years after the fact, is insufficient evidence on which to base an award of the Purple Heart.

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 that 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.

NOTE: Officials at the Army Review Boards Agency Support Division in St. Louis are requested to administratively correct the applicant’s separation document to reflect award of a Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, the Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, and one silver service star on his Vietnam Service Medal.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KAN __ ___LE_ _ __JTM__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085494
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20031002
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.	107.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.