RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        16 October 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008690


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John E. Anderholm             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |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 while
serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored 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
AR20060012870, on 12 April 2007.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found no orders or
other documents on file in the applicant's record that show he was ever
recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on
active duty.  It also found his record was void of any medical treatment
records that indicate he was ever treated for a combat related wound or
injury by military medical personnel while serving in the RVN, and it
determined his name was not included in a list of casualties contained on
the Department of the Army Vietnam Casualty Roster.  As a result, it
concluded there was insufficient evidence to support awarding the applicant
the PH.

3.  In support of his reconsideration request, the applicant provides a
self-authored letter in which he outlines the circumstances under which he
was wounded.  He claims he received a shrapnel wound to his right leg while
on a mission with the 48th Aviation extracting Soldiers from a combat
mission when their gunship took enemy fire.  He claims to have been treated
at a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital on the runway, where they cleaned his
cuts.  He states he had three pieces of shrapnel in his chin and received
stitches.  He went back on the mission and they continued removing Soldiers
all night.  He states a captain went back to the MASH with him the next
morning to do reports and told him he deserved the PH.

4.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the RVN from 18 December 1965 through 20 March 1967.  Item 38
(Record of Assignments) shows that during his RVN tour, he was assigned to
48th Aviation Company, performing duties in military occupational specialty
(MOS) 11B (Gunner).  Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and the PH is not included
in the list of awards contained in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations).

5.  On 20 March 1967, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty, in the rank of specialist four (SP4), after completing 1 year, 9
months and 5 days of active military service.  The list of awards contained
in the DD Form 214 does not include the PH and the applicant authenticated
this document with his signature on the date of his separation.

6.  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 in order to award a PH there must be evidence that a member was
wounded or injured as a result of enemy action.  The wound or injury for
which the PH is being awarded must have required treatment by a medical
officer and this treatment must be supported by medical treatment records
that were made a matter of official record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to be awarded the PH was carefully
reconsidered.  However, there is still an insufficient evidentiary basis to
support granting the requested relief.

2.  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, that it required treatment by military medical
personnel, and a record of this treatment must have been made a matter of
official record.

3.  Item 40 of the applicant's DA Form 20 is blank, which indicates he was
never wounded in action, and the PH is not included in the list of awards
contained in Item 41.  The PH is also not included in the list of awards
contained in the applicant's DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his
signature on the date of his separation.  In effect, his signature was his
verification that the information contained on the separation document, to
include the list of awards, was correct at the time the document was
prepared and issued.

4.  Absent any evidence of record to corroborate the information provided
by the applicant in his self-authored letter requesting reconsideration,
the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has
still not been satisfied in this case.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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 or that would support
amendment of the original Board on this matter.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__SLP  __  __JEA __  __JRS___  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 AR20060012870, dated 12 April 2007.




                                  _____Shirley L. Powell _____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070008690                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20060012870 -  2007/04/12             |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/10/22                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1967/03/20                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Trns to USAR                            |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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