Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | ||
Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | ||
Ms. Yolanda Maldonado | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that he be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was wounded in action while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). He claims his record shows that he received the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) with Valor (“V”) Device; however, he never received the PH.
3. The applicant provides a copy of the decision signature page of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision in support of his application.
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:
1. Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board award the applicant the PH.
2. Counsel states, in effect, that the applicant has set forth his contentions clearly in his application and that the VA rating decision shows that the applicant was wounded in combat. Counsel states that where reasonable doubt arises with respect to the applicant’s petition, all such doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s contention that while he was awarded the BSM with
“V” Device, but never received the PH he was entitled to was carefully considered. However, by 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.
2. The orders awarding the applicant the BSM for heroism did not indicate that the applicant was wounded during this encounter in the reason summary of events. Given the applicant received this valor award, it is reasonable to presume that had he been wounded in action the PH would have been awarded at the same time. Further, Item 40 of his DA Form 20 is blank, which indicates he was never wounded or injured in action while serving on active duty. Finally, his name is not included in the DA Vietnam Casualty Roster, the official list of RVN battle casualties.
3. The VA rating decision extract provided by the applicant was carefully evaluated. However, this document is incomplete and while indicating that the applicant was granted service connection for residuals of shrapnel wounds, it provides no indication that this VA rating decision was supported by military medical treatment records, or if it was based solely on the VA evaluation of the applicant and his version of events. Further, this VA document provides no evidence to show that the wounds/injuries for which the VA granted service connection were received as the direct result of or caused by enemy action.
4. Records show that at the latest, the applicant should have discovered the PH error or injustice now under consideration when he was issued his DD Form 214 on the date of his separation, 26 September 1968, therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of his record regarding this issue expired on
26 September 1971. However, he did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and he has failed to provide a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse his failure to file his claim of entitlement to the PH.
5. Records show the applicant was awarded the ARCOM and that he qualified to receive the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, It further shows that based on his RVN service, he is entitled to the VUA, RVNGC with Palm Unit Citation, RVNCAHMFC Unit Citation, and four bronze service stars with his VSM. Therefore, the absence of these awards from the record is constitutes an administrative error. However, Board action is not required to make the necessary corrections. Thus, administrative correction of the applicant’s record will be accomplished by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Support Division, St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined by the Board in paragraph 2 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_LEM___ __YM__ __RO____ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2003089268 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | |
DATE BOARDED | 2003/12/DD |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1968/09/26 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
DISCHARGE REASON | Overseas Returnee |
BOARD DECISION | GRANT PARTIAL |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. 61 | 107.0015 |
2. 46 | 107.0000 |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011335
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 December 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011335 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's OMPF is void of any orders or other documents that indicate he was ever wounded in action or recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving in the RVN. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award him the AGCM for his qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 27 May 1966 through 25 December 1968, and to add this award to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003326
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 May 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080003326 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. These orders awarded the applicant the PH for being wounded in action in the RVN on 15 March 1968. Therefore, it would be appropriate and serve the interest of justice to award the applicant the PH 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (2nd Award) for being wounded in action in the RVN on 1 June 1968, and to add these awards to his record and separation document at this time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086692C070212
The applicant states, in effect, he should have received the PH for wounds he received in action in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) on 13 June 1969. He also indicates that the applicant refused medical evacuation, and he strongly encourages that the military records of the applicant be corrected to document the wounds he received in action and that the applicant be awarded the PH as a result. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002838
Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows he was assigned to Company C, 5th SF Group (Airborne), 1st SF, performing duties in MOS 11F as an intelligence specialist during his RVN tour of duty. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award him the first award of the AGCM for his qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 29 March 1966 through 25 November 1968 and to add this award to his record and DD Form 214. As a result, the Board recommends that all...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005956
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards. Official orders on file announcing his award of the BSM w/"V" Device confirm the applicant was wounded in action while serving in the RVN on 29 June 1968. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the Purple Heart for being wounded in action in the Republic of Vietnam on 29 June...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015901
The evidence of record confirms the applicant was awarded the BSM with V Device for heroism in the RVN on 9 May 1968 and this award was announced and authorized in GOs issued by the 199th Infantry Brigade, as evidenced by an entry in item 41 of his DA Form 20. The evidence of record also confirms the applicant received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings at all of his active duty assignments. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003027
The applicant states, in effect, he was awarded the PH on 10 May 1968; three Army Commendation (ARCOM) medals with "V" (Valor) Device for heroism on 31 January, 9 May, and 16 August 1968; and the BSM on 17 November 1968. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was wounded in action in the RVN on 9 May 1968, as evidenced by an entry in item 40 of his DA Form 20, the ARCOM with "V" Device orders for 9 May 1968 on file in his OMPF, an entry on the Vietnam Casualty Roster, and by the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088647C070403
There are also no other award orders or other documents on file in the MPRJ that indicate that the applicant was ever recommended for or awarded the BSM with “V” Device while serving in the RVN. Paragraph 6-5 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the “V” Device. However, although the record confirms he was awarded the BSM for meritorious service, it contains no evidence to indicate that he received the “V” Device with this award or with any other award he received during his tenure...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000373C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 January 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040000373 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant states, in effect, that due to an administrative oversight, he was never awarded a PH he was entitled to based on being wounded in action on 5 August 1969, while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN)....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010066
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 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. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal, for his qualifying period of honorable active duty service from 2...