Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 040005867C070208
Original file (040005867C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 FEBRUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005867


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer Prater               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Pagan                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Kenneth Lapin                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant states he sustained shrapnel wounds to his leg and back
in March or April 1969 when the vehicle he was in was destroyed by a land
mine.  He states that his wounds were not bad, but were bandaged by a
medic, and then the convoy moved on.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 1 May 1970.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
12 July 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board.  This
case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily
consist of a copy of the applicant’s separation document.

4.  The applicant's separation document indicates that he served on active
duty between 3 May 1968 and 1 May 1970 and that he served in Vietnam
between
22 September 1968 and 13 September 1969.  His separation document indicates
that he performed duties as a heavy vehicle driver.

5.  The applicant's name was not among a list of individuals reported as
combat casualties during the Vietnam War.

6.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Unfortunately, there is no medical evidence, and the applicant has not
provided any which confirms that he was wounded as a result of hostile
action while in Vietnam.  In the absence of such medical evidence, there is
no basis for an award of the Purple Heart.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must,
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.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 May 1970; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
30 April 1973.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JP___  ___TP __  ___KL___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____ Jennifer Prater_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005867                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050215                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04102236C070208

    Original file (04102236C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    All of the awards were confirmed in orders issued by the 1st Cavalry Division, however, his separation document reflects award of only the Army Commendation Medal; the "V" devices were omitted from the entry. The medical evidence available to the Board does not confirm that the applicant’s scalp laceration was the result of hostile action. Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show: a. award of two “V”...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060007785C070205

    Original file (20060007785C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states, in effect, that he was wounded while riding in a personnel carrier that hit an enemy mine and was evacuated to a hospital for treatment; however, he was not awarded the Purple Heart. He departed Vietnam on 8 July 1971 and was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, where he remained until he was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability with severance pay (10%) on 22 May 1973. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000854

    Original file (20070000854.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to show that he is entitled to award of the Purple Heart and correction of his records to show this award. Record shows the applicant was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds sustained in action in the Republic of Vietnam on 17 May 1967, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072643C070403

    Original file (2002072643C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board also noted that the applicant authenticated his discharge document which shows that he was not awarded the Purple Heart. Based on the foregoing, there is no basis for granting award of the Purple Heart in this case. The applicant’s DD Form 214, with a separation date of 14 June 1983, shows the Vietnam Service Medal as an authorized award.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081736C070215

    Original file (2002081736C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be corrected to show two awards of the Purple Heart. There is no evidence in the applicant‘s available records that substantiate his claim of being wounded a second time and awarded a second Purple Heart. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the applicant was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds he sustained in action on 28 September 1971.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005478C070205

    Original file (20060005478C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 October 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060005478 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. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not list any wounds as a result of hostile action in item 40 (Wounds). Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative errors which do not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002450C070208

    Original file (20040002450C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    United States Army Vietnam Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards) provided, in pertinent part, for award of the Purple Heart. Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative error which does not require action by the Board. Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show entitlement to the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, a Meritorious Unit Commendation, and a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073346C070403

    Original file (2002073346C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    There are no orders in the applicant’s service personnel records which show that he was awarded the Purple Heart. The letter from the National Personnel Records Center stated essentially that a search of official military records failed to produce any evidence that the applicant received any wounds as a result of hostile action and that, in the absence of such evidence, a Purple Heart cannot be authorized. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002055C070205

    Original file (20060002055C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show award of the Purple Heart. The Western Union telegram shows the applicant was wounded in action on 14 August 1970 in Vietnam. 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 wounds received on 14 August 1970; b. amending his DD Form 214 to show the Purple...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001817C070208

    Original file (20040001817C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...