IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  21 June 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120000573 


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 reconsideration of his earlier petition requesting award of the Purple Heart (PH) and Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).  

2.  The applicant states the attached documents support his request.  

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his request:

* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 
25 February 2009
* Internet Aircraft Incident Document
* Third-Party Statements (2)

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 AR20100029711, on 23 June 2011.  

2.  The applicant provides, as new evidence, a VA Rating Decision, dated 
25 February 2009, which show he was granted service connection for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) which was in part based on his service treatment records showing he was treated for a shrapnel wound from a hostile mortar attack on 17 February 1968.  He did not provide the actual service treatment record that supported this entry on the VA rating decision.  He also provides an extract of an internet document that indicates an enemy rocket and mortar attack on 16 February 1968.  He finally provides two third-party statements from individuals who claim to have served with him in the RVN.  The first statement outlines the applicant's duties as a door gunner and what that required him to do, and the second confirms an enemy rocket attack on 
16 February 1968 and mortar attack on 16 August 1968.  One statement indicates the applicant suffered cuts and bruises he indicated were the result of his falling while running to and from a bunker.  Neither indicate they witnessed the applicant receiving shrapnel wounds.  

3.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in the RVN from 16 January 1968 through 13 January 1969.  It further shows that during his RVN tour he was assigned to the 187th Aviation Company from 
22 January through 4 March 1968; and to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop (HHT), 7th Squadron, 1st Air Cavalry from 5 March 1968 through 9 January 1969.  The record shows he performed duties as a door gunner in both units.  Item 40 (Wounds) is blank and the PH and CIB are not included in the list of earned awards contained in item 41 (Awards and Decorations).   

4.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any documents indicating he was ever recommended for or awarded either the PH or CIB by proper authority while serving in the RVN.  It also contains no medical treatment records indicating he was ever treated for a wound he received as a result of enemy action.  There are no PH or CIB orders on file in his MPRJ.  

5.  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 U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal orders for the PH or CIB.  

6.  Review of The Adjutant General's Office, Casualty Division's Vietnam casualty listing shows the applicant's name is not included in the list of RVN casualties.  

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) contains the Army's awards policy.  Paragraph 2-8 contains guidance on award of the PH.  It states 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 the wound required treatment by military medical personnel; and a record of that treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  

8.  Chapter 8 of the awards regulation contains guidance on award of the CIB.  It states in order to support award of the CIB there must be evidence the individual held an infantry MOS; that he served with an infantry unit brigade, regimental, or smaller size; and that he was present and participating with his qualifying infantry unit performing duties as an infantryman while the unit was engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration of his earlier petition to the Board requesting award of the PH and CIB and the new evidence he submitted has been carefully considered.  However, there remains insufficient evidence to support his claim.  

2.  The evidence of record contains no entries or documents that corroborate the applicant's claim that he was wounded as a result of enemy action while serving in the RVN.  Item 40 of his DA Form 20 is blank indicating he was never wounded in action and his name is not included on the Vietnam Casualty list.  

3.  Further, his record is void of any documents or orders indicating he was ever wounded in action while serving in the RVN.  Although the applicant provided a VA rating decision that indicates his medical record shows he was treated for a shrapnel wound received during an enemy mortar attack, he failed to provide the service medical record supporting this statement.  

4.  In addition, neither third-party statement serves as an eyewittness account of his being wounded as a result of enemy action.  Therefore, absent any evidence of record to corroborate the applicant's claim that he received shrapnel wounds as a result of enemy action and/or that these wounds required treatment by military medical personnel, there remains an insufficient evidentiary basis to support award of the PH.  

5.  The applicant's record is also void of any indication that he ever performed traditional infantry duties during his RVN tour, or that he was ever present and participated with a qualifying infantry unit while performing infantry duties when the unit was engaged in active ground combat with enemy forces.  To the contrary, the record shows he served as a door gunner with both an aviation unit and a HHT of a cavalry unit during his RVN tour.   As a result, he does not meet the regulatory criteria necessary to support award of the CIB.  







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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100029711, dated 23 June 2011.



      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20120000573



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120000573



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1