BOARD DATE:	  6 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120004897 


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 request to be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).  

2.  The applicant states he was never issued the PH for shrapnel wounds he received in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a DD Form 1380 (U.S. Field Medical Card) and Standard Forms (SF) 600s (Chronological Record of Medical Care) for treatment between 17 August 1967 and 18 August 1968.  

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 AR20100029889, on 23 June 2011.  

2.  During the original review of the case, the Board found no evidence of record indicating the applicant was ever wounded in action or treated for wounds received in action while serving in the RVN.  


3.  The applicant now provides copies of a DD Form 1380 that shows he was treated for a shrapnel wound to his right elbow on 5 April 1968.  The form indicates the applicant was getting into a bunker during a mortar attack when he sustained the wound.  He also provides SF 600s that show he was treated for a shrapnel wound to his right elbow on 17 August 1968 and indicate he was wounded during a mortar attack the previous evening.  These forms also show treatment for a shrapnel wound to the right elbow on 5 and 9 May 1968.  They also show treatment for a shrapnel wound to the nose on 18 August 1968 which does not identify how the wound was sustained.   

4.  The applicant’s record shows he was inducted into the Army on 9 August 1967 and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

5.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he served in the RVN from 12 January 1968 through 11 January 1969.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows that during his RVN tour, he was assigned to Company A and E, 1st Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, performing duties in MOS 11B.  

6.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the DA Form 20 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 1 May 1969.  

7.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any orders or other documents showing the applicant was ever wounded in action and/or recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority.  It is also void of any medical treatment records confirming treatment for wounds received in action while serving in the RVN.  

8.  On 6 June 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), in the rank of sergeant/E-5, after completing 1 year, 9 months, and 28 days of active military service.  

9.  The Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty List, the official DA list of RVN battle casualties, does not contain an entry on the applicant.   

10.  A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System maintained by the Military Awards Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, which is an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973, failed to reveal orders awarding the applicant the PH. 

11.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Section I contains guidance on ABCMR establishment and functions.  Paragraph 2-2c states the ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof.  It states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, that what the Army did is correct.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  The medical document copies provided by the applicant, while indicating treatment for shrapnel wounds, do not contain consistent facts regarding when and how the applicant sustained the wounds, or that confirm they were received as a result of enemy action.  The DD Form 1380 he provides, dated 5 April 1968, indicates he sustained the shrapnel wound to his elbow getting into a bunker during a mortar attack.  Included in the SFs 600 is an entry dated 17 August 1968 which indicates he sustained the shrapnel wound to his elbow the evening before (16 August 1968) during a mortar attack and other entries are not clear on how and when the wound was sustained.  

3.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 contains no entry in item 40 which would have been expected had his wounds resulted from enemy action given the presence of medical treatment records.  The applicant last audited his DA Form 20 confirming the entries were correct at the time on 1 May 1969, well after the date he would have received the shrapnel wounds in question.   In addition, the applicant’s name is not listed on the Vietnam Casualty Listing, the official DA list of RVN battle casualties.  

4.  Given the medical treatment records provided by the applicant, it could have been expected had the chain of command or medical authorities determined the applicant’s shrapnel wounds were received as a result of enemy action he would have been awarded the PH at the time.  

5.  Given the lack of specificity in the medical treatment documents provided by the applicant and the absence of any evidence of record corroborating these documents, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to overcome the presumption of regularity attached to his official military records has not been satisfied in this case.  

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 AR20100029889, 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)                                         AR20120004897



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120004897


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1