RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 April 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070017560
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. Lester Echols | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder | |Member |
| |Mr. Larry W. Racster | |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 earlier
application requesting award of the Purple Heart (PH).
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was promised the PH by his
commander in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) 39 years ago. He claims that
during a firefight in the RVN, he was hit twice by shrapnel, once in the
back and once in the foot. He outlines the action during which he was
wounded and provides an explanation for why the treatment for the wound was
not included in his medical record. He concludes by stating that he shed
blood in a real combat situation and deserved the PH at the time, and still
does now.
3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement and Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) medical document, dated 14 August 2007, 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
AR20060007644, on 16 November 2006.
2. During its original consideration of the case, the Board found no
evidence of record that showed the applicant was ever wounded in action in
the RVN, and as a result it found an insufficient evidentiary basis to
support award of the PH.
3. The applicant provides a medical document from the VA, dated 14 August
2007, which indicates a single metallic fragment is demonstrated in the
soft tissue adjacent to the anterior and superior aspect of the talus
(ankle joint that connects the leg to the foot). The document shows this
condition was first reported by the applicant on 25 July 2007, and there
was no record of any previous examination regarding this condition. The
document also contains no information regarding when or how the applicant
received this metallic fragment.
4. The applicant's record shows he was inducted into the Army and entered
active duty on 27 February 1967. He was trained in and awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), and specialist four (SP4)
is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.
5. The applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows he
served in the RVN from 10 August 1967 through 9 August 1968. Item 40
(Wounds) is blank, and the PH is not included in the list of awards
contained in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations). The applicant last audited
the DA Form 20 on
18 September 1968.
6. The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
orders or other document that indicate he was ever recommended for, or
awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty. It also
contains no medical treatment records that indicate he was ever treated for
a combat related wound or injury during his tenure in the RVN.
7. On 16 January 1969, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing 1 year, 10 months, and 20 days of active military service. The
separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time did not include
the PH in the list of awards contained in Item 24 (Decorations, Medal,
Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or
Authorized).
8. During the processing 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 on this roster.
9. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides 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 support
award a PH there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is
being made was received as a result of enemy action, that it required
treatment by military medical personnel, and a record of this medical
treatment must have been made a matter of official record.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request that be awarded the PH was carefully
reconsidered. 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 it required treatment by
military medical personnel; and a record of the 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 41. The applicant last audited the DA Form 20 on 18
September 1968, more than a month after he departed the RVN. In effect,
this audit was his verification that the information contained on the DA
Form 20, to include the Item 40 and Item 41 entries, was correct at that
time. In addition, his 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.
3. The applicant's DD Form 214 does not include the PH in the list of
awards contained in Item 24, and the applicant authenticated this document
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 contained in Item 24, was correct at the time
the separation document was prepared and issued. Finally, the applicant's
name is not included on the Vietnam Casualty Roster, the official DA list
of RVN battle casualties.
4. Although, the VA medical document provided by the applicant, which was
prepared in August 2007, shows a single metallic fragment was demonstrated
in the talus (ankle joint that connects the leg to the foot), it does not
provide any specific evidence that this fragment was received as a result
of enemy action in the RVN almost 40 years earlier. Absent any evidence of
record to corroborate that the applicant's claim that he was wounded in
action in the RVN, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support
award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case. Therefore, it would
not be appropriate and/or in the interest of all those who served in the
RVN and who faced similar circumstances to grant the requested relief at
this late date.
5. 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.
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 or that would support
amendment of the original Board decision in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___LE __ __JRS __ __LWR__ 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 AR20060007644, dated 16 November 2006.
_____Lester Echols______
CHAIRPERSON
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001143
The PH is not included in the list of awards contained in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations). This document contains no entries that indicate the applicant was wounded in action, or treated for a combat-related wound or injury while serving on active duty. In view of the evidence of record in this case, notwithstanding the entry in Item 40 of his DA Form 20 and the unit log entry provided, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to include the requirement of medical care and that care be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001949
The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application: Enlistment Record (DD Form 4); Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20); promotion and award orders; Report of Medical Examination (SF 88), dated 20 September 1965; Report of Medical History (SF 89), dated 20 September 1965; Military Medical Record treatment records; and separation document (DD Form 214). Absent any evidence of record confirming the applicant was wounded in action or treated for a combat-related...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008203
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). If the applicants shoulder wound had been received as a result of enemy action, given his hospitalization was a matter of record, and his wound was recorded on his separation medical examination, it is likely his DA Form 20 would have properly documented this fact in item 40. Absent any evidence of record that confirms the applicant was wounded in action or treated for a combat-related wound or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011304C070208
The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of active duty service shows he earned the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM), Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), RVN Campaign Medal and Sharpshooter Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. The record provides no evidence that he was ever wounded in action, or awarded the PH, as evidenced by the absence of an entry in Item 40, and by the PH not being included in the list of authorized awards in Item 41 of his DA Form 20. Therefore, the Board requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002897C070205
As a result, he was never awarded the PH. The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no orders, or other documents that indicate the applicant was ever recommended for, or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty. 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 direct result of, or was caused by enemy action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000273C070206
It does appear the applicant received a fragment wound while serving in the RVN. The fact that the fragmentation wound was mentioned during the applicant’s final physical examination processing, and in several VA medical treatment records prepared subsequent to his separation does not automatically result in a conclusion that the wound was combat related. His DA Form 20 is void of an entry in Item 40 showing he was wounded in action, and does not include the PH in the list of authorized...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017680C070206
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 July 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050017680 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. 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 direct result of, or was caused by enemy action. Absent any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003597
During its original review of the case, the Board found insufficient evidence to show the applicant was ever wounded as a result of enemy action while serving in the RVN, or that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving in the RVN. 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. In addition, since the applicant was clearly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013829
The applicants Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) includes an entry in Item 31 (Foreign Service) that shows he served in the RVN from 12 October 1969 through 16 February 1970. The PH guidance contained in the awards regulation further states that accidents, to include accidental wounding, not related to or caused by enemy action clearly do not qualify for award of the PH. Item 40 of the applicant's DA Form 20 is blank, which indicates he was never wounded in action, and the PH is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006000C071029
Qawiy A. Sabree | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Item 40 (Wounds) is blank, and the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations). Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show his entitlement to the Valorous Unit Award, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation and 4...