RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 December 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010264 


	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

Ms. Joyce A. Wright

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Kathleen Newman

Chairperson

Ms. Rose M. Lys

Member

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

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, award of the Purple Heart, for a shrapnel wound he received to his left hand while serving in Pleiku, Vietnam, in March 1969. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was pulling guard duty and a trip flare went off and a grenade was fired and he was hit by shrapnel in the left hand.  He was air lifted to the hospital for x-rays and treatment of this injury but did not receive the Purple Heart for this combat injury.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and a copy of his military medical record, dated 18 March 1969, depicting shrapnel wound to his left hand, in support of his request. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's record shows he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 17 April 1968.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  On completion of his advanced training, he was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS), 62M, Loader Operator.  

3.  The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-5 on 18 July 1969.  He served in Vietnam from 6 October 1968 to 2 October 1969.  He served until he was released from active duty on 17 April 1970.  He was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training).  He was honorably discharged on 1 April 1974.

4.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, with three bronze service stars; the National Defense Service Medal; the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal; the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge, with Rifle Bar (M-14), and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge, with Rifle Bar (M-16).  His DD Form 214 does not show any additional awards.

5.  His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show an entry in item 40 (Wounds) and the Purple Heart is also not shown as an authorized award in item 41 (Awards and Decorations). 

6.  The applicant's name does not appear on the Vietnam Casualty List for a wound received as a result of hostile action. 

7.  The applicant's medical records are unavailable for review.

8.  The applicant provided a copy of a Standard Form (SF) 519A (Radiographic Report) which shows an examination was requested for a shrapnel wound to his left hand, on 18 March 1969.  The report shows that it was requested by an MC (Medical Corps) officer; however, there is no indication the X-ray was taken and what determination was made, if any.  In addition, there is no indication the shrapnel wound was received as a result of enemy or hostile action.  The SF 519A is largely incomplete and critical information was omitted.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 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 by military medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. 

10.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows that the applicant's unit was cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, with Palm, Unit Citation, by Department of the Army General Orders (DAGO) Number 8, dated 1974, while he was assigned to the unit.  This unit award is not shown on the applicant's DD Form 214.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence indicates that the applicant may have received shrapnel wound to his left hand on 18 March 1969, while serving in Vietnam.  The evidence shows an x-ray was requested by an MC Officer; however, there is no indication 
an x-ray and a diagnosis were made.  The radiographic report is inconclusive for the purposes of supporting an award of the Purple Heart.  There is no evidence to show that his shrapnel wound was received as a result of enemy or hostile action.  Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to approve award of the Purple Heart and correct his records to show this award.  

2.  There are no orders awarding the applicant the Purple Heart, he is not listed on the Vietnam Casualty List, and there are no other medical records available to show that he was treated for a wound that he might have received as a result of hostile action.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his records to show the award of the Purple Heart.

3.  The applicant's unit was cited for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, with Palm, Unit Citation, while he was a member of the unit.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show this unit award.

4.  Evidence shows that the applicant’s records contain administrative error which does not require action by the Board.  Therefore, administrative correction of the applicant’s records will be accomplished by the Case Management Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined by the Board in paragraph 2 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KAN __  ___RL___  __EM___ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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 to correct his DD Form 214 to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart.

2.  The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show award of 
the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross, with Palm, Unit Citation, to the applicant and to add this award to his DD Form 214.




___  Kathleen Newman________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070010264
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20071206
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19700417
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
107
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.



1.  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.

2.  The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show (list the corrections to be made).