RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  29 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012456 


	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. Judy Blanchard

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Shirley L. Powell

Chairperson

Mr. Paul M. Smith

Member

Mr. Larry C. Bergquist

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).  He was awarded a service-connected disability rating by the Department of Veteran Affairs. 

3.  The applicant provides a notarized third-party 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 AR20050004936, on 18 October 2005.  

2.  During its original review of the case, the applicant’s military records were not available for review.  The applicant’s record were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  However, it was determined that their were sufficient documents remaining in his reconstructed record to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  The Board found no orders or other documents on file in the applicant's available 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 notarized statement from an individual who outlines the circumstances under which the applicant was wounded.  The individual attested that he witnessed the applicant being wounded in combat by shrapnel on 6 April 1968 at Fire Base #14 in the Kuntom Province, Republic of Vietnam.  He further states, that the applicant’s wounds were not serious as those of the many men wounded that day, so another Soldier removed the applicant’s flack jacket and administered first aid by applying bandages to his wounds.  The individual further states that the applicant did not receive medical attention by a combat medic.  The witness himself was wounded the next day, however, his wounds were serious enough to cause him to be hospitalized and thus receive the Purple Heart.  He states that the applicant remained with his unit until completion of his tour in Vietnam in December 1968.  

4.  The applicant's limited record shows he served in the RVN for 11 months and 23 days.  On 28 July 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active duty, in the rank of specialist four (SP4), after completing 2 years and 12 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 release from active duty.  

5.  On 23 March 2006, a DD Form 215 (DD Form 214 correction) was prepared as a result of the Board's original review of this case.  This correction added the RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, to the list of authorized awards contained on the applicant’s DD Form 214.

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 military medical personnel 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 for reconsideration of his petition to be awarded the PH and the supporting third party statement he provided were carefully considered.  However, absent any evidence of record to corroborate the information presented by the applicant and in the third-party statement he provides, there is still insufficient evidence to support award of the PH in this case.  

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 sustained as a result of enemy action, that the wound required treatment by military medical personnel, and a record of this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  

3.  The PH is not included in the list of awards contained on the applicant's DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his signature on the date of his release from active duty, more than a year after he had left the RVN.  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.  

4.  In addition, although a third-party statement is provided indicating that the applicant was wounded and that the wound he received was the direct result of enemy action, there are no orders or other documents on file in the applicant's available record that show he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty.  While it is understandable that it was not possible to prepare and submit awards paperwork during the battle in question, the applicant served in the RVN in the same unit for seven or eight months after the battle in question, and he continued to serve in the Army for an additional year or more after this action.  There is no indication that any attempt was made to resolve the PH issue by either the applicant or his chain of command in the months he remained serving in the RVN after the battle in question, or that the applicant made any attempt to resolve the issue himself at anytime in the year he remained serving on active duty after his departure from the RVN and prior to his release from active duty.  

5.  The sincerity of the applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH and of the information contained in the third-party statement provided is not in question.  However, 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 the wound required treatment by military medical personnel; and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  Absent any evidence of record to corroborate the information contained in the third-party statement provided and/or of any evidence that the applicant was awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has still not been satisfied in this case, and the applicant's request must be denied in the interest of all those who served in the RVN and who faced similar circumstances. 

6.  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.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_SLP___  _PMS____  __LCB__  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 AR20050004936 dated 18 October 2005.




____Shirley L. Powell______
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070012456
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20080129
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
107.0015
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.