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]