IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  6 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100000419 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states he was injured by enemy fire in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) on 12 May 1968 and was treated at an aid station.

3.  The applicant provides a Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 12 May 1968, in support of his application.

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 record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 18 October 1967.
3.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he served in the RVN from 27 April 1968 through 24 April 1969.  Item 9 (Awards, Decorations, and Campaigns) does not include the PH in the list of earned awards.  The applicant last reviewed his DA Form 2-1 on 9 May 1984.

4.  The applicant's official military personnel file is void of any orders or documents that indicate he was ever awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on active duty.  It also contains no medical records showing he was ever wounded in action or treated for a wound received as a result of enemy action.

5.  The record confirms the applicant was processed through the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System.  This included evaluation by a physical evaluation board (PEB) that ultimately led to a determination of unfitness and his retirement by reason of physical disability.  The medical processing packet documenting this processing contains no documents or references to the applicant being wounded in action in the RVN in 1968.

6.  The record is also void of any indication the applicant pursued award of the PH in the more than 16 years he remained on active duty after departing the RVN or during his separation processing.

7.  On 13 November 1985, the applicant was honorably retired in the rank of master sergeant/E-8 by reason of physical disability.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he received at the time does not include the PH in the list of awards contained in item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).

8.  The applicant provides a Standard Form 600, dated 12 May 1968.  This document shows he was treated for a small laceration to his forehead.  It fails to indicate how this injury was incurred and does not indicate the wound was received as a result of enemy action.

9.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board's staff reviewed the DA Vietnam casualty roster.  The applicant's name was not included on the roster.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 2-8 contains guidance on the PH.  It states the PH is awarded to members wounded in action.  It also states in order to award the PH there must be evidence of the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the wound required treatment by military medical personnel, and a record of the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention he should be awarded the PH has been carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record and independent evidence submitted by the applicant fails to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, in order to support award of the PH the member must have been wounded in action and there must be evidence the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action, the wound must have required medical treatment by military medical personnel, and this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

3.  The Standard Form 600 provided by the applicant shows he was treated for a laceration to his forehead on 12 May 1968.  However, it does not indicate this injury was received as a result of enemy action.  The record also contains no medical treatment records or other documents that confirm the applicant was ever wounded as a result of enemy action or treated for a combat-related wound or injury while serving in the RVN.

4.  Further, the PH is not included in the list of earned awards in item 9 of his DA Form 2-1 which he last reviewed in 1984 and there is no indication he pursued award of the PH in the more than 16 years he remained serving on active duty after his departure from the RVN.  As a result, absent any evidence of record confirming the laceration the applicant was treated for on 12 May 1968 was received as a result of enemy action, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been met.  Therefore, it would not be appropriate or serve 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.

5.  The applicant and all others concerned should know this action related to award of the PH in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by him 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

____X____  ____X____  ____X____  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.



      ___________X______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100000419



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100000419



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1