RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  30 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005398 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Bernard P. Ingold

Chairperson

Mr. Thomas M. Ray

Member

Mr. Gerald J. Purcell

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 reconsideration of his previous request for award of the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while he was serving in the Republic of Vietnam, he sustained and was treated for a fragment wound in February 1969.

3.  The applicant provided copies of the following documentations in support of his application:

	a.  Self-authored letter responding to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) denial letter dated 4 April 2007 of his request for award of the Purple Heart dated 25 August 2006.

	b.  Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care).

	c.  SF88 (Report of Medical Examination) dated 21 September 1967, upon his induction.

	d.  SF88 dated 29 July 1969, upon separation.

	e.  Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability Rating computer printout.

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 AR20060012769, dated 27 March 2007.

2.  The applicant submitted a copy of one page of his SF 600, chronological record of medical care, which was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant's self-authored letter addresses the following issues:

	a.  The Board's statute of limitations should not have been invoked as he only learned that the Purple Heart was not on his records in 2006.

	b.  The Board's statement that his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) does not contain medical treatment records is incorrect.  As proof, he provides an SF 600.

	c.  The Board stated his MPRJ did not contain an SF 89 (Report of Medical History or SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination).  He states this is incorrect and provides copies of his pre-induction and separation SF 89 and SF 88.  

4.  The SF 600 dated on an unknown date in February 1969, shows this entry on the form: "headaches on arising in the morning; disappearing after a couple of hours.  Sustained fragment wounds on left, frontal area from M-79 over 1 week ago, metal fragments can be felt superior to entrance, will wait for fragments to possibly come closer to surface." 

5.  The applicant's pre-induction medical examination, in Clinical Evaluation, Item 18 (Head, Face, Neck and Scalp) shows a finding of normal in September 1967.  In July 1969, the examining physician drew a straight line in Clinical Evaluation starting from Item 19 (Nose) and extending through the last item, Item 43 (Pelvic, Females Only), showing all areas to be normal.  Item 18 does not show normal, nor does it show "abnormal."

6.  The applicant's records show that he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge on 20 September 1968.  The orders which awarded the applicant the Combat Infantryman Badge do not show the period for which the award was granted.

7.  Item 24 (Decoration, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) does not show award of the Purple Heart.

8.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show any entries for wounds received.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) does not show award of the Purple Heart.

9.  There are no general orders in the applicant's records to show he was awarded the Purple Heart.

10.  The applicant's name does not appear on the Vietnam Casualty Roster. 

11.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards), then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart was awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must have been provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have been treated by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official records.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms. 

2.  The applicant stated the Board's original consideration of his case should not have invoked the 3-year statute of limitations.  The applicant is absolutely correct.  AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) currently provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound 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, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  This regulation also provides that there are no time limitations for requests for award of the Purple Heart.  However, the original Board consideration of the applicant's request did consider the overall merits of the case before determining there was insufficient evidence to warrant granting the applicant's request and invoking the statute of limitations.

3.  The applicant stated the Board's original consideration of his case alleged his MPRJ did not contain an SF 89 (Report of Medical History or SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination).  In paragraph 6 of Consideration of Evidence, the original consideration states "The MPRJ does include [emphasis added] a Report of Medical History (SF 89) and Report of Medical Examination (SF 88)."  This was his separation physical and this was the only medical documentation in the record.  This is not uncommon when an applicant has utilized the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) system.  The DVA obtains and keeps all service medical records when a veteran enters that system.

4.  The applicant submitted one medical document, a SF 600, to show that he sustained a "frag[ment] wound." And this fragment wound was caused by an    M-79 grenade round, a US munitions.  However, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant's SF 600 does not provide sufficient evidence to show how the wound occurred, or to show that the applicant was involved in the "heat of battle" or "as a result of hostile action" at the time of his injuries.

5.  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records regrets any impression given that the original review and denial of the applicant's request was based solely upon the statute of limitations.  The applicant's request was, and is now being considered on its merits.  Unfortunately, there simply is insufficient evidence available to grant this request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__bpi___  __tmr___  __gjp___  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 AR20060012769, dated 4 April 2007.




							Bernard P. Ingold
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070005398
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070830
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
107.0015
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.