RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 March 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070017149


      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. Frank C. Jones                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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); and that he be allowed to appear before the
Board.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was wounded in action in the
Republic of Vietnam (RVN) and was treated for this wound by a doctor.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of his
application.

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
AR20060012273, on 3 April 2007.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found no official
record showing that the applicant was treated for a wound sustained while
in action against the enemy or that was caused by enemy action.  It further
concluded that the supporting third-party statements provided were not
sufficient as a sole basis to award the PH and absent any medical treatment
records confirming he was treated for a combat-related wound, the
regulatory requirement that there be a record of medical treatment had not
been fulfilled.

3.  In support of his reconsideration request, the applicant provides a
self-authored letter in which he indicates, in effect, that he received a
wound to his hand while engaged in combat with enemy forces in the RVN, and
that he was treated for this wound by military medical personnel.  He
claims he suffered from pain from this wound to his hand for months because
of the poor treatment he received.  He states that it is his belief that
the Board made up its mind to not award him the PH, and that the third-
party supporting statements he provided should have been sufficient to
support his claim.  He requests a personal appearance before the Board.

4.  The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the RVN from 22 June 1969 through 21 June 1970.  Item 40 (Wounds)
is blank and the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in Item
41 (Awards and Decorations).  Item 48 (Date of Audit) shows the applicant
last audited the
DA Form 20 on 10 November 1970.

5.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
orders or other documents that indicate the applicant 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 while serving in the RVN.

6.  On 20 January 1971, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing 2 years of active military service.  The separation document (DD
Form 214) he was issued at the time does not include the PH in the list of
awards contained in Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations,
Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), and the applicant
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of
Person Being Transferred or Discharged) on the date of his separation.

7.  During the review of this case, a member of the Board staff reviewed
the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster.  There was no
entry pertaining to the applicant included on this roster.

8.  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.

9.  Army Regulation 15-185 establishes the procedures for making
application, and the consideration of applications, for the correction of
military records to the Secretary of the Army acting through the Army Board
for Corrections of Military Records.  Paragraph 2-10 contains guidance on
ABCMR consideration and states, in pertinent part, that panel members may
consider a case on its merits in executive session or may authorize a
hearing when it determines it is warranted. Paragraph 2-11 contains
guidance on ABCMR hearings and states, in pertinent part, that applicants
do not have a right to a hearing.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a
formal hearing whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he is entitled to the PH for being
wounded in action in the RVN was carefully reconsidered.  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 this medical
treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

2.  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 14.  The applicant last audited this record on 10
November 1970, nearly three months after he departed the RVN.  In effect,
his audit was his verification that the information on the record, to
include the Item 40 and Item 41 entries, was correct at the time of the
audit.  His MPRJ is void of any medical treatment record that shows he was
ever treated for a combat-related wound while serving in the RVN, or that
indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority
while serving on active duty.

3.  The PH is not included in the list of awards contained in Item 24 of
the applicant's DD Form 214, and he authenticated this document with his
signature on the date of his separation.  In effect, his signature was his
verification that the information on this document, to include the list of
awards contained in Item 24, was correct at the time the DD Form 214 was
prepared and issued.  Finally, his name is not included on the Vietnam
Casualty Roster, the official DA list of RVN battle casualties.  As a
result, absent any evidence of record that corroborates his claim of
entitlement to the PH, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support
award of the PH has still not been satisfied in this case, and there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support amendment of the original
decision in this case.

4.  The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing before this
Board was noted and considered.  However, the facts and circumstances of
the case, as currently documented, are sufficient to render a fair and
impartial decision, and a personal appearance hearing is not warranted or
required to serve the interest of justice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__FCJ___  __CD ___  __SWF__  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 AR20060012273, dated 3 April 2007.




                                  _____Frank C. Jones____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070017149                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |2007/04/03-AR20060012273                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/02/                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1971/01/20                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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