RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  13 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010178 


	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. Mark D. Manning

Chairperson

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

Member

Mr. Rowland C. Heflin

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 award of the Purple Heart and the Combat Action Badge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was driving an M-Gator Military Utility Vehicle on Al Taqaddum Air Base (Iraq) on 27 August 2006 when enemy mortar round exploded within 120 feet of his vehicle.  He felt a sharp "bee sting" on his left leg and noticed a small hole in his pant leg.  He took cover with several marines who were in the vicinity.  Afterwards, he inspected the M-Gator he was driving and discovered shrapnel damage to the left front fender.

3.  In his self-authored statement, dated 1 August 2007, the applicant states that he was hit by shrapnel on 27 August 2006 and was reluctant to apply for award of the Purple Heart.  However, at the insistence of his immediate commander he submitted his request.  He further adds that at the time of the mortar attack, he felt a "bee sting" from what he thought was a rock hitting him.  However, when he returned to the site and saw pieces of shrapnel, he took pictures of the damage and realized then that the bruise on his leg resulted from shrapnel.  He also provided pictures of the damage caused by the mortar shrapnel to the site and to his vehicle.

4.  The applicant provides the following additional documentary evidence in support of his application:

	a.  Self-authored statement, dated 1 August 2007, and photographs of the mortar impact site.

	b.  Undated DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), requesting award of the Combat Action Badge, but not signed by the approval authority.

	c.  DA Form 4187, dated 10 May 2007, requesting award of the Combat Action Badge and disapproved by the approval authority.

	d.  Unsigned and undated Citation and Narrative to accompany award of the Combat Action Badge.

	e.  DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 25 February 2007.

	f.  Joint Forces Headquarters-Virginia, Blackstone, Virginia, Orders 253-29, dated 10 September 2005, Active Duty Orders.

	g.  DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement), dated 28 August 2006.

	h.  Navy-Marine Corps Clinical Treatment Record-Theater Medical Registry Form, dated 27 August 2006.

	i.  Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical care), dated 29 August 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is a sergeant (SGT)/E-5 in the Virginia Army National Guard (VAARNG) serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 15N (Avionic Mechanic).  He is assigned to Company E, 2nd Battalion, 224th Aviation, Sandston, Virginia.

2.  On 10 September 2005, the applicant was ordered to active duty as a member of his Reserve unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and subsequently served in Iraq from 26 February 2006 to 7 February 2007. 

3.  On 27 August 2006, a mortar round exploded within 120 feet of the applicant's position in Al Taquadum, Iraq.  He was treated at a Navy Medical Treatment Facility on the same day.  The military doctor indicated on the Navy-Marine Corps Clinical Treatment Record-Theater Medical Registry Form, dated 27 August 2006, that the applicant was diagnosed with "stress reaction" and that there was "no physical damage."

4.  On 29 August 2006, the applicant returned to the same medical treatment facility for a follow up.  The military doctor remarked on the applicant's SF 600 that he (the applicant) had been exposed to indirect fire; that his left side was oriented toward impact; and while he had a small rip in the left leg pocket of his battle dress uniform which was ostensibly caused by being struck by shrapnel or debris, the projectile did not even penetrate the papers he carried in that pocket.  The doctor cited "mild tinitus [sic]" and cleared the applicant for flight status.

5.  On 25 January 2007, the applicant's Company Commander created a Memorandum For Record explaining his tardiness in submitting a recommendation to award the applicant the Combat Action Badge.  He further signed a DA Form 4187 certifying that the applicant was personally present and under fire by the enemy during the event that took place on 27 August 2006.  


6.  The applicant's records contain a DA Form 4187 recommending the applicant for award of the Combat Action Badge.  This form was signed by the applicant's Company Commander, Battalion Commander, and Group Commander.  However, the approval authority, a lieutenant general, disapproved the award on 10 May 2007.

7.  The applicant's records do not contain permanent orders awarding him the Purple Heart or the Combat Action Badge.

8.  The applicant provided sworn statements, all dated 28 August 2006, and authored by four different individuals who described the events that took place on 27 August 2006.  All of the statements provide indicate that a mortar round exploded within 100 to 120 of the applicant's vehicle; however, none of the statements provide that the applicant was wounded.

9.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Chief, Personnel Division, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia, recommended disapproval of award of the Purple Heart.  The opinion stated that after reviewing the medical documentation submitted, there was no conclusive evidence that treatment for a wound occurred.  Also, after reviewing the DA Form 4187, there was no indication on the form that the request was verified, approved, or disapproved [Note:  it was disapproved on 10 May 2007].

10.  A copy of this advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant on 10 January 2008, for his information and possible comments, but he did not respond within the time allotted. 

11.  A staff member of the Casualty Operations Division, Human Resources Command, Alexandria, Virginia, verified that no casualty report was reported or made for any incidents involving enemy action on or about 27 August 2006 pertaining to the applicant.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against an enemy or 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 by military medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the requirements for award of the Combat Action Badge are branch and MOS immaterial.  Assignment to a combat arms unit or a unit organized to conduct close or offensive combat operations, or performing offensive combat operations is not required to qualify for the Combat Action Badge.  However, it is not intended to award the Combat Action Badge to all Soldiers who serve in a combat zone or imminent danger area.  The Soldier must be performing assigned duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized.  The Soldier must be personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy, and performing satisfactorily in accordance with the prescribed rules of engagement.  The Soldier must not be assigned or attached to a unit that would qualify the Soldier for the Combat Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medical Badge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's claim of entitlement to the Purple Heart and the supporting evidence provided were carefully considered.  However, in order to support award of the Purple Heart, there must be evidence confirming that the wound or injury for which the award is being made was received as a direct result of, or was caused by enemy action, that the wound was treated by military medical personnel, and a record of this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  Unfortunately, those requirements were not met in this case.

2.  The applicant's wound was variously described as a "bee sting" or a "bruise."  The Navy doctor who saw the applicant stated that whatever struck the applicant did not even penetrate the papers in his pocket.  None of the witness statements provided by the applicant categorically state that he was wounded during the incident on 27 August 2006.

3.  With respect to the applicant's entitlement to award of the Combat Action Badge, the decision of whether to award an individual a decoration and which decoration to award is a judgment call made by the commander having award approval authority.  The 3-star commander at the time of the act, or shortly 
thereafter, determined that the applicant's actions did not meet the criteria for award of the Combat Action Badge.  There is no evidence and the applicant did not provide substantiating evidence that shows the decision to deny him award of the Combat Action Badge was in error or unjust.








BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mdm___  __jcr___  __rch___  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




							Mark D. Manning
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.