RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         19 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017511


      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. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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 is requesting reconsideration
of his request for the PH based on new evidence he is now providing.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Fellow Soldier Third-Party Statement with 2 Attachments (List
of Rotating Soldiers and Letter Home); Third-Party Statement Fellow
Soldier; and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision.

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
AR20040010171, on 9 June 2005.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found insufficient
evidence to support award of the PH.  The applicant provides two third-
party statements from two former Soldiers who served with him in the
Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Vietnam as new evidence.

3.  The first third-party statement provided is from an individual who
indicates he was the applicant's platoon sergeant and best friend in the
RVN.  He provides two attachments with his statement.  The first is a list
of 33 Soldiers, including the applicant, who were scheduled to rotate back
to the United States in late November 1968.  He claims that five of the
names on the list, including the applicant, were hospitalized and they were
unsure if they were rotating with the rest of the men on the list.  The
second attachment is a letter he wrote to his father on 22 June 1968, in
which he told him about the wounds that were received by members of his
platoon when they were hit by a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG).  He claims
the applicant was one of the two squad leaders mentioned.  He also states
that the wounding the applicant is talking about took place between the
10th and 14th of November 1968; however he does not recall the exact date,
or specific details about the wound.

4.  The second third-party statement is from an individual who indicates he
served with the applicant in the RVN.  He sates that the applicant received
a wound to his right thumb in November 1968, prior to rotating back to the
United States.  He claims the applicant's 's wound was reported, treated,
and processed from the battlefield to the rear medical station.

5.  The applicant also provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 18 October
2004, which shows he was granted a service connection for a scar,
postoperative, right thumb, residual of abscess.  There is no indication on
the document that military medical records were used to support this
decision.

6.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the RVN from 1 December 1967 through 24 November 1968.  Item 40
(Wounds) is blank and the PH is not included in the list of authorized
awards contained in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations).  The applicant last
audited his DA Form 20 in January 1969.

7.  There are no documents on file in the applicant's Military Personnel
Records Jacket (MPRJ) that show he was ever recommended for, or awarded the
PH by proper authority while he was serving on active duty, or that
indicate he was ever treated for a combat related wound or injury by
military medical personnel.

8.  On 16 December 1969, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing 2 years, 11 months, and 14 days of active military service.  The
separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him upon his separation does
not include the PH in the list of authorized awards contained in Item 24
(Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons
Awarded or Authorized).  The applicant authenticated this document with his
signature on the date of his separation.

9.  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.

10.  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, the
wound must have required medical treatment and the medical treatment must
have been made a matter of official record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's reconsideration request and the supporting third-party
statements 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, that wound required treatment by military medical personnel,
and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a matter of
official record.

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 applicant's DA Form 20 contains a blank entry in Item 40, which
indicates he was never wounded in action, and the PH is not included in the
list of awards contained in Item 41.  The applicant last audited his DA
Form 20 on 10 January 1969, more than two months after he departed from the
RVN.  In effect, his audit of this record was his verification that the
information contained on the DA Form 20, to include the Item 40 and Item 41
entries, were correct at that time.  His
DD Form 214 also does not include the PH in the list of authorized awards
contained in Item 24, and he authenticated this document with his signature
on 16 December 1969, the date of his separation from active duty.  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 statements 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, or any official
record of his medical treatment for a combat related wound or injury, 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

___JEV  _  ___BJE _  ___DLL  _  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 AR20040010171, dated 9 June 2005.




                                  _____James E. Vick______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017511                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20040010171 / 2005/06/09              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/07/19                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/2/16                               |
|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]