IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  13 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110004114 


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 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected by adding the Purple Heart (PH) and any other awards he may be eligible for.  

2.  The applicant states his DD form 214 does not show the PH he may be eligible for.  He claims he was wounded around 15 August 1968, while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  

3.  The applicant provides a letter that he wrote to a family member while he was in the RVN 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 applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 1 November 1966, and he was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 56B (Supply Handler). 

3.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in the RVN from 10 February through 24 October 1968.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that during his RVN tour he was assigned to the 2nd Surgical Hospital performing duties in MOS 76Y as a unit supply specialist.  Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in item 41 (Awards and Decorations).  

4.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of orders or documents indicating he was wounded in action in the RVN.  It is also void of medical treatment records indicating he was treated for a combat-related wound.

5.  On 25 October 1968, the applicant was honorably released from active duty after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 28 days of active military service.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214, as amended by a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) issued on 17 August 1990, show he earned the following awards: 

* National Defense Service Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars 
* RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation
* RVN Campaign Ribbon with Device (1960)
* Army Good Conduct Medal
* Meritorious Unit Commendation
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
* 1 Overseas Service Bar.

6.  The applicant provides a letter he wrote home from the RVN in 1968.  In this letter, he claimed to have received shrapnel wounds during a rocket attack on 
15 August 1968.  He further emphasized his wounds were minor and indicted he turned down the PH. 

7.  During the review of this case, a member of the Boards staff reviewed the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster.  This roster does not contain an entry pertaining to the applicant.  


8.  A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS), an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the United States Army Human Resources Command also failed to reveal any orders for the PH pertaining to the applicant.

9.  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 medical personnel, and a record of the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.

10.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) lists the awards received by units serving in Vietnam.  This pamphlet shows the 2nd Surgical Hospital was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation for the period 1 July 1967 through 
29 February 1968 in Department of the Army General Order Number 48, dated in 1968.  The unit received no other awards.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for award of the PH and all other awards he may be eligible to receive has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this request.

2.  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 medical personnel, and a record of the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  The applicant’s record is void of any entries or documents corroborating his claim that he was wounded in action in the RVN, or that shows he was treated for a combat-related wound by medical personnel while serving in the RVN.

3.  Item 40 of the applicant's DA Form 20 does not indicate he was wounded in action.  Further, there is no entry pertaining to the applicant on the Vietnam casualty listing, the official DA list of RVN casualties.  Notwithstanding the letter the applicant wrote while assigned to the RVN in 1968, absent corroborating evidence that he received shrapnel wounds as a result of enemy action, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case. 

4.  Further his record is void of any indication that he is eligible for any additional awards not already included on his DD Form 214, as amended by a DD Form 215 issued on 17 August 1990.  As a result, there is no indication additional awards should be added to his record and DD Form 214.  

5.  The applicant and all others concerned should know this action 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)                                         AR20110004114



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110004114



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1