IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110003103 


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 his medical record be changed to show he suffered from a shrapnel wound instead of a puncture wound on 5 July 1969.  He 
requests, through his Congressional representative, reconsideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) decision denying him the award of the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant states he and his sergeant major did not get along because he had submitted a Congressional inquiry concerning promotions.  He states the sergeant major called him in after the injury and denied the medic's request for the Purple Heart.  He states the medic was instructed to enter a puncture wound in his record instead of a shrapnel wound.

3.  The applicant provides a Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) dated 5 July 1969.

4.  His Congressional representative provides:

* a statement, dated 28 March 2011, from a fellow Soldier
* an SF 600, dated 5 July 1969
* the applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge)
* her letter, dated 5 January 2009, requesting reconsideration of the ABCMR's denial of the Purple Heart with associated documents


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 AR20070016788, on 3 April 2008.

2.  The statement, dated 28 March 2011, from a fellow Soldier is new evidence which requires his case to be reconsidered by the ABCMR.

3.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 March 1968.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71H (Personnel Specialist).

4.  He served in the Republic of Vietnam from 26 September 1968 to 29 August 1969.  He was assigned to the:

* 2nd Battalion, 320th Artillery from 26 September 1968 to 11 March 1969
* 1st Battalion, 321st Artillery from 12 March to 29 August 1969

5.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not contain any entries indicating that the applicant received any wounds.  

6.  His name does not appear on the Vietnam casualty roster.

7.  The service medical treatment record, provided by the applicant, indicates that on 5 July 1969 he was treated for a puncture wound on the bottom of his right foot and had sand debris in the wound.  The record states the wound was cleaned and dressed and occurred during an "alert for incoming mortar or rockets (actual)."

8.  In a statement, dated 28 March 2011, from a fellow Soldier, that fellow Soldier indicated he served with the applicant in the Republic of Vietnam.  He stated they were attacked by mortars while running to the bunker on 4 or 5 July.  He states "Something went into (the applicant's) boot…"  They stayed in the bunker for 
3 hours when he saw blood coming from the applicant's boot.  He helped him to medical attention.  He states a big piece of metal was taken from his foot and his foot was bandaged up.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against an enemy or as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment by medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

10.  Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 9 of the version in effect at the time, stated, in pertinent part, that a brief description of wounds or injuries (including injury from gas) requiring medical treatment received through hostile or enemy action, including those requiring hospitalization would be entered in item 40 (wounds) of the DA Form 20.  This regulation further stated that the date the wound or injury occurred would also be placed in item 40.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends he and the sergeant major did not get along and the sergeant major directed the medic to enter a puncture wound vice a fragment wound in his service medical record.  However, he has submitted no substantive evidence to support this contention.

2.  He submitted a statement by a fellow Soldier who stated a big piece of metal was removed from the applicant's right foot.  However, the medical record merely shows there was sand in the wound and it was cleaned and dressed.  His statement in of itself, made over 40 years after the fact, is insufficient to show that an error occurred in this case.

3.  There is no substantive evidence that the entry concerning his right foot is anything other than a description of the wound and the actual treatment given at the time.  

4.  In view of the above, there is no basis to change his medical record to show a shrapnel wound.

5.  The entry in his medical record does not indicate that his injury was the result of hostile action.  Even though the injury occurred during an alert for mortars, the record of medical treatment does not indicate the degree to which the enemy caused the injury.

6.  Item 40 of his DA Form 20 does not contain any entries describing wounds or injuries requiring medical treatment received as a result of enemy action.  His name is not listed on the Vietnam casualty listing.

7.  There is insufficient substantive evidence to provide for the award of the Purple Heart.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X____  ____X__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20070016788, dated 3 April 2008.

2.  The Board also determined there is an insufficient basis to change the entry dated 5 July 1969 in his service medical record.



      __________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)                                         AR20110003103



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110003103



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1