RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         13 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017120


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John M. Moeller               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Naomi Henderson               |     |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, in effect, reconsideration of his request to be
awarded the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he requests to be awarded the PH
for wounds he received during the heat of battle.  He claims his records
confirms his repeated engagement with enemy forces on many occasions, which
includes
29 August 1969.

3.  The applicant provides a third-party statement in support of his
reconsideration request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20040001230, on 13 January 2005.

2.  The applicant's record shows he served on active duty for 3 years from
30 October 1967 through 29 October 1970.  It also shows that he served with
the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 24 March
1969 through 17 March 1970.

3.  The applicant's record also confirms that during his active duty
tenure, he earned the following awards:  Distinguished Flying Cross; Bronze
Star Medal; Army Commendation Medal; Air Medal with Numeral 2 and "V"
(Valor) Device; Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal;
Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars; RVN Campaign Medal with
1960 Device; Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Automatic Rifle
and Rifle Bars; and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol
Bar.

4.  During the original review of the case, the Board found insufficient
evidence to support a conclusion that the shrapnel wound in question was
received as a direct result of, or was caused by enemy action.

5.  The applicant now provides as new evidence a third-party statement from
an individual who claims to have been on the mission with the applicant on
29 August 1969, when he received the shrapnel wound in question.  He states
the applicant was using an M-79 grenade launcher to destroy enemy bunkers
and flush out the enemy.  He claims that he remembers there were several
secondary explosions from ammo caches in the bunkers.  He also remembers
the applicant stating that he thought he might have been hit.  He states
that later that day, he noticed the applicant had blood on his hands and
face, and he recommended the applicant get checked out at the aid station
as soon as possible.  He concludes by stating that cuts and abrasions were
just part of a normal day, he never asked the applicant about his injury.

6.  There are no documents on file in the applicant's record that show he
was ever recommended for, or awarded the PH by proper authority while he
was serving on active duty.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued
to him upon his separation, which he authenticated with his signature, did
not include the PH in the list of authorized awards included in Item 24
(Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons
Awarded or Authorized).

7.  During this review of the case, a member of the Board staff reviewed
the Department of the Army Vietnam Casualty Roster.  The applicant's name
was not included on this list of RVN battle casualties.


8.  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 award of the PH.  It states, in pertinent
part, that in order to award a PH there must be evidence that the wound for
which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's reconsideration request and the supporting third-party
statement he provided were carefully considered.  However, by regulation in
order to support award of the PH there must be evidence confirming that the
wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy
action.

2.  The evidence of record contains no documentary evidence that confirms
the applicant was wounded as a direct result of enemy action, or that he
was ever recommended, or awarded the PH by proper authority while he was on
active duty.
3.  The record does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 that does
not include the PH in the list of authorized awards contained in Item 24.
The applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of
his separation.  In effect, his signature was his verification that he
information contained on the separation document, to include the list of
awards was correct at the time it was prepared and issued.  Finally, the
applicant's name is not included on the Vietnam Casualty Roster, the
official DA list of RVN battle casualties.

4.  The veracity of the applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH, and of
the information contained in the third-party statement he provided is not
in question.  However, absent any evidence of record confirming that the
wound in question was received as a result of enemy action, the regulatory
burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied
in this case.  As a result, it would not serve the interest of all those
who served in the RVN and who faced similar circumstances to grant the
requested relief at this late date.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RJO _  __JMM __  __NH___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20040001230, dated 13 January 2005.





                                  _____Robert J. Osborn____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017120                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20040001230 / 2005/01/13              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/07/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/10/29                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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