RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 March 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070016949


      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:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau               |     |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 (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was wounded in action in the
Republic of Vietnam (RVN) on 3 May 1967, while on a combat operation.  He
claims that he was a squad leader and while leading his men on point for
the operation, they came under heavy fire from a village they were
approaching.  He states that as the enemy fire became more intense, he
called for mortar support and directed his grenadier to fire his M-79
grenade launcher toward the nearest hut from where they were receiving the
most fire.  He claims that while advancing on the village, something
exploded above him and he received burning metal in his right thigh.  He
states that as soon as it was safe, he was evacuated by the Medical
Corpsmen (Medics) and transported back to base camp.  He states that he was
treated for his wounds at the medical tent and placed on light duty for a
week.  He contends that when he returned to the United States, he was
notified he should go to Tampa, Florida, for an examination on his right
thigh, but was unable to attend.  He states he has never received the PH
for the wound he received and requests it be awarded at this time.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Statement; Letter Home with Newspaper Article;
and Congressional Inquiry with Unit Morning Reports, dated in June 1967 and
Unit Daily Staff Journal/Duty Officer's Log for 3 May 1967.

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 and entered
active duty on 21 January 1966.  He was trained in and awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman), and sergeant
is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.
3.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the RVN from 1 December 1966 through 27 November 1967.  Item 38
(Record of Assignments) shows that during his RVN tour, he was assigned to
Company A, 2nd Battalion, 60th Infantry Regiment, performing duties in MOS
11B as a squad leader.  Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and the PH is not
included in the list of awards contained in Item 41 (Awards and
Decorations).

4.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
orders or other documents that indicate he was ever recommended for or
awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty.  It is
also void of any medical treatment records that show he was ever treated
for a combat- related wound or injury while serving in the RVN.

5.  On 28 November 1967, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty (REFRAD) after completing 1 year, 10 months, and 8 days of active
military service.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued
shows he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:
National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; Republic of Vietnam
Campaign Medal; Combat Infantryman Badge; and Bronze Star Medal.  The PH is
not included in the list of awards contained on the DD Form 214 and the
applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his
REFRAD.

6.  On 3 October 2006, the Chief, Military Awards Branch, United States
Army Human Resources Command (HRC), responded to a PH request from the
applicant.  This HRC awards official informed the applicant that although
they located documentation that he had been treated for a fragment wound to
his right leg on 3 May 1967, the documentation did not specify the
circumstances in which the applicant incurred this injury.  He further
informed the applicant that to support award of the PH they needed official
documentation regarding the incident.  The HRC official also advised the
applicant that based on their review of his record, they did approve award
of the Army Good Conduct Medal and verified his entitlement to 2 bronze
service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal, the RVN Gallantry Cross with
Palm Unit Citation, and the RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit
Citation.  The HRC Military Awards Branch also issued the applicant a DD
Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) that added these awards to his
separation document.

7.  The unit morning reports submitted with the application are dated 3 and

19 June 1967, and contain entries pertaining to the applicant's departure
on and return from R&R in Bangkok.  The Daily Staff Journal provided for 3
May 1967, recounts the action and refers to a short round, but indicates no
casualties and an M-79 dust off but gives no details.  There are no
specific entries confirming the applicant was wounded in action.
8.  The applicant also provides a letter home and a newspaper article that
indicate he was wounded in the RVN on 3 May 1967.

9.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff
reviewed the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster.  No entry
pertaining to the applicant being wounded in action is contained on this
roster.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army's awards
policy.  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; that the wound required treatment by military medical
personnel; and the record of this medical treatment must have been made a
matter of official record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH was carefully
considered.  However, by regulation, in order to support award of the PH
there must be evidence that the member was wounded 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.

2.  The applicant's record is void of any orders or other documents that
indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority
while serving on active duty.  It is also void of any medical treatment
records that confirm he was treated for a wound or injury received as a
result of enemy action.  Further, Item 40 of his 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.

3.  Although HRC confirmed there was medical documentation indicating the
applicant was treated for a fragment wound to his right leg on 3 May 1967,
this documentation did not contain the circumstances under which the wound
was sustained, or a confirmation that the wound was received as a result of
enemy action or qualifying friendly fire.  The fact there was medical
documentation regarding this treatment, but no entry was made in Item 40 of
the DA Form 20 and no PH was awarded would indicate the wound was not
received under conditions that supported award of the PH.

4.  Further, 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 separation.  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 separation document was prepared and
issued.  Finally, his name is not included on the Vietnam Casualty Roster,
the official DA list of RVN battle casualties.

5.  Absent any evidence confirming the applicant received his fragment
wound as a result of enemy action, or that he was awarded the PH by proper
authority while serving on active duty, it is concluded that the regulatory
burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied
in this case and therefore, it would not be in the interest of all those
who served in the RVN and who faced similar circumstances to award the
applicant the PH at this late date.

6.  The applicant and all others concerned should 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RTD _  __GTP __  __RMN__  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.




                                  _____Richard T. Dunbar____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070016949                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/03/                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1967/11/28                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |OD Ret                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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