RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011011


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James R. Hastie               |     |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 was wounded in action in the
Republic of Vietnam (RVN) on 19 September 1968, when he was knocked down by
an enemy explosion.  He claims to have received two wounds to the back and
that he was treated for these wounds at a field hospital.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of his
application.

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
AR20050001108 on 18 August 2005.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board noted the applicant's
record was void of any orders awarding him the PH, and it concluded there
was insufficient evidence to show he was wounded in action.

3.  The applicant submits a self-authored statement as new evidence
supporting his reconsideration request.  In it, he claims his unit came
under attack by a regiment of Viet Cong on 13 September 1968, and during
that first night, two of his bunker friends were hit by Rocket Propelled
Grenade (RPG) rounds.  He further states that while he and the medical
corpsman (MEDIC) were helping move these individuals to the center of the
base, the MEDIC was also wounded.  He claims that all three were sent back
to the United States.  He indicates that the same night, his squad leader
was killed by an RPG round.  He states that over the next few days, they
were in constant fighting with the Viet Cong, and on 19 September 1968, he
was himself wounded when he was knocked down by an enemy explosion.  He
claims to have received two wounds to his back, and that he was treated for
these wounds at a field hospital.  He further states that he volunteered to
remain in the field with his unit, because it was short handed.  He states
that because they were in the field, he has no idea all of this was [not]
in his medical record until he requested them a short time ago.  He states
his wife and two children, and he would like the Board to reconsider its
decision on awarding him the PH, which he thinks he deserves.


4.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the RVN from 19 April 1968 through 18 April 1969.  Item 40
(Wounds) is blank and Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) does not include the
PH in the list of authorized awards.  The applicant last audited the DA
Form 20 on 5 June 1969.

5.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
orders or documents indicating the applicant was ever recommended for, or
awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty.

6.  The applicant's MPRJ contains a medical treatment record (SF 600),
dated
19 September 1968, which shows the applicant was treated at the 3rd
Battalion, 22nd Infantry aid station, for a piece of shrapnel to his back.
This treatment record gives no indication that applicant's wound was combat-
related.

7.  On 31 October 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 28 days of active military
service.  The PH was not included in the list of awards contained on the
separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at this time.  The
applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his
release from active duty.

8.  A review of the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster
completed by a member of the Board staff during the original consideration
of this case found no entry pertaining to the applicant.

9.  In connection with the processing of this reconsideration request, a
member of the Board staff reviewed the unit historical records of the
applicant's RVN unit, which are maintained at the National Archives.  This
review failed to provide any evidence showing the applicant is entitled to
the PH.

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 awarding the PH.  It states, in pertinent
part, that the PH is awarded to any member who has been wounded or killed
in action. A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an
outside force or agent sustained under conditions defined by this
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 was received
as a direct result of, or was caused by enemy action, the wound 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.  In this case, although the record confirms the
applicant was treated for a shrapnel wound in the RVN on 19 September 1968,
there is no evidence of record confirming this wound was received as a
result of enemy action.

2.  The applicant's DA Form 20 contains no entry in Item 40, which
indicates the applicant was never wounded in action while serving on active
duty, and the PH is not included in the list of authorized awards contained
in Item 41.  The applicant last audited the DA Form 20 on 5 June 1969,
after his departure from the RVN.  In effect, this audit was his
verification that the information contained on the record, to include Item
40 and Item 41, was correct at that time.  Further, there are no orders, or
other documents on file in his MPRJ that indicate he was ever recommended
for, or awarded the PH by proper authority while he was serving on active
duty.

3.  In addition, the PH is not included in the list of awards contained on
the
DD Form 214 he was issued on 31 October 1969, which he authenticated with
his signature on the date of his release from active duty.  In effect, his
signature was his verification that the information contained on the DD
form 214, to include the list of awards, was correct at the time the
document was prepared and issued.  Finally, his name is not included on the
Vietnam Casualty Roster, the official DA list of RVN battle casualties, and
a review of unit historical records failed to provide any evidence
corroborating the applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH.

4.  In view of the facts of this case, the regulatory burden of proof
necessary to support award of the PH has still not been satisfied in this
case.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support
amendment of the original Board decision in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__TMR __  __JCR __  __JRH __  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 AR20050001108, dated 18 August 2005.




                                  _____Thomas M. Ray______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060011011                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20050001108 - 2005/08/18              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/01                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/10/31                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 . . . .                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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