BOARD DATE:	  3 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012154 


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 previous request for award of the Purple Heart for wounds he received in Vietnam.

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  In 2008, he applied for the first time to be awarded the Purple Heart.  He was advised that on the basis of available documentation, the ABCMR could not make a decision on his application because a fire destroyed approximately 18 million service records.

   b.  The ABMCR Record of Proceedings (ROP), page 2, stated he enlisted on 25 May 1966.  This is incorrect.  He enlisted in the Army on 29 January 1965.  He is enclosing copies of his 2 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) ending on 24 May 1966 and 6 May 1969 and DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record).  This shows his short discharge and his reenlistment.

   c.  The enclosed 1966 DD Form 214 shows he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63C (wheel and truck vehicle mechanic).  On the final discharge it states the same.  He never received any military police (MP) training and where that came from he has no idea.  This goes to show that more of his paperwork is wrong.  He enlisted in January 1965 and after initial training he was awarded MOS 63C.

   d.  Since the foregoing is wrong then how good was the research for the Purple Heart?  When he arrived in Vietnam he was mechanic and 2 weeks later he was a scout.  He saw no mention of that fact in the papers he has.  When he left Vietnam his dream sheet stated he was now an MP.  Some other service papers that he has contain entries that have been crossed-out.  He has no idea why.  This goes to say that his records are really messed up and that has been the problem the entire time.

   e.  Items 19 (Investigation and Clearances) and 22 (MOSs) of his DA Form 20 have entries that have been crossed-out.  Item 24 (Aptitude Test) of this form contains the wrong date of 15 January 1965.  He did not join the Army until 29 January 1965.  Item 31 (Foreign Service) shows he arrived in Vietnam on 31 July 1966 and it should be 31 May 1966.  This is okay.

   f.  The ROP stated that his medical records were not available for the time he was in Vietnam and that his personnel records were void of nearly all documentation related to Vietnam.  If medical records were unavailable, then how is it known that he was treated for wounds or injuries while assigned to the Troop B, 1st Battalion, 4th Calvary?

   g.  When he and his wife were searching for his military records they received a letter stating about 18 million records were decoyed in a fire.  Since this happened, he wonders if his service records for Vietnam were lost also.  The fact is he was attached to Troop B, 1st Squadron, 4th Calvary, 1st Division.  Could there have been a mix-up of paperwork and it was lost?  He was attached to the 1st Infantry Division.  He received the wound in the same action for which he was awarded the Army Commendation Medal.  That action was reported to Sergeant (SGT) Kxxxxx, of which he heard no more about.  Could it be that SGT Kxxxxx did not forward the paperwork or was it lost also since nearly "ALL" documentation related to his service in Vietnam is void of mention?

   h.  The piece of shrapnel was large enough to draw blood, but small enough to be covered by a Band-Aid.  If he was supposed to see a medic he was never informed of it by SGT Kxxxxx.  Again, he states that if the Board's investigation was so great then why is his enlistment and MOS wrongly reported?  How did he receive the shrapnel in his arm which his shown on the copy of the report he previously provided and again enclosing?  A Soldier was blown out of the truck and shots were fired at them as he was trying to get the Soldier out of the open and into cover.  This is when he received the gift of shrapnel in his arm which he still has in his arm as an everyday remainder.  He could go on and on, but why. He knows what happened and he relives it over and over.

   i.  If his records were destroyed in the fire where did the information for his Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System (ADCARS) come from?  In 1973, he doesn't believe that the computer assisted retrieval was in service.  The items he listed show the Board does not have the facts right.  He has the Army Commendation Medal, shrapnel still in his arm, and the Board states he needs more proof.  He believes that the Board needs to prove to him that it did not happen.  He is 100 percent disabled from a back injury, has post-traumatic stress disorder, and has hearing loss due to being in the service.  Now he finds out that he cannot receive the medal he should have been awarded 48 years ago.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* DA Form 20
* General Orders (GO) Number 1245
* two DD Forms 214 ending on 24 March 1966 and 6 May 1969
* letter from the ABCMR
* Radiology Report
* letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

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 AR20130017334 on 27 May 2014.

2.  The applicant provides new argument and it will be considered by the Board.

3.  His complete military records are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 16 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed his records were destroyed in that fire.

	a.  However, there were sufficient documentation contained in a reconstructed record and those submitted by the applicant for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

	b.  The Board is now relying on his DD Form 214, ending on 24 March 1966; DD Form 214, ending on 6 May 1969; GO Number 1245; and his DA Form 20, in adjudicating his case.

4.  His DA Form 20 and his DD Form 214 for the period ending 24 May 1966, show he enlisted in the RA on 29 January 1965 for 3 years.  He completed the Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic Course from April to June 1965 and the Track Vehicle Mechanic Course from July to September 1965.  He was awarded MOS 63C. 

5.  His DA Form 20 shows he served in Germany, U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) from 28 September 1965 through 20 June 1966.  He was honorably discharged on 24 March 1966 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  He was credited with completing 1 year, 3 months, and 26 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 lists the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14).

6.  His available records contain a Statement of Enlistment, dated 25 May 1966.  He was assigned to the 6th Missile Battalion, 562nd Artillery at the time.  He indicated his desire to reenlist in the RA. 

7.  His DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 May 1969, shows he reenlisted in the RA on 25 May 1966 for 3 years.  His DA Form 20 shows he served in Vietnam from 31 July 1966 through 27 July 1967 in MOS 63C and 11D (scout observer).  He was assigned to Troop B, 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry, 1st Infantry Division.

8.  He provided a copy of GO Number 1245, issued by Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division on 9 February 1967, awarding him the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device for heroism while serving as a driver of an armored personnel carrier escorting an engineer mine rooting vehicle in Vietnam on 2 October 1966.  The orders stated:

On this date, [Applicant] was serving as the driver of an armored personnel carrier escorting an engineer mine rooting vehicle north of Tan Vgen.  Suddenly a vehicle on the opposite side of the road was disabled by a Viet Cong land mine.  With complete disregard for his personal safety, he grabbed his first aid kit and, exposing himself to hostile anti-personnel mines and the fuel leaking from the disabled vehicle, rushed to the aid of his injured comrades.  

9.  His DA Form 20 also shows he was awarded MOS 95B (MP) on 13 November 1967 and he served at/in: 

* Fort Riley, KS, in MOS 95B (Military Policeman), from on or about 1 September 1967 to on or about 6 April 1968; he was assigned to the 92nd and 508th MP Companies
* Germany, USAREUR, from 28 April 1968 to on or about 4 May 1969 in MOS 95B (MP); he was assigned to 287th MP Company

10.  He was released from active duty on 6 May 1969 as an early overseas returnee.  He was credited with completing 2 years, 11 months, and 12 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 lists his last unit of assignment as the 287th MP Company, Berlin Command, and his MOS as 95B.  It also shows he was awarded or authorized the: 

* Army Good Conduct Medal
* Army Commendation Medal
* Army of Occupational Medal with Germany Clasp
* one overseas service bar
* National Defense Service Medal
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14
* Vietnam Campaign Medal
* Vietnam Service Medal

11.  There is no evidence of record that shows he was injured or wounded as a result of hostile action or that he was awarded the Purple Heart.  Nothing in several typical sources shows he was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action.

	a.  His medical records, which would have listed any injuries and treatment, are not available for review with this case.

	b.  Item 40 (Wounds) of his DA Form 20 does not show a combat wound or injury.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), chapter 9, stated 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 of the DA Form 20.  This regulation further stated that the date the wound or injury occurred would also be placed in item 40.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) of this form lists all the awards shown on his 1969 DD Form 214.

	c.  His personnel records do not contain an official Army message or a Western Union telegram notifying his next of kin of an injury or wound sustained in action.  This was the proper notification procedure for injuries at the time.

	d.  His name is not shown on the Vietnam casualty listing.  This is a compiled listing of Vietnam era casualties commonly used to verify entitlement to award of the Purple Heart.

	e.   A review of the ADCARS maintained by 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 any orders for the Purple Heart pertaining to the applicant.

12.  He provided copies of the following:

* letter, dated 26 August 2088, wherein the ABCMR advised him that on the basis of the available documentation the Board couldn't make a decision on his application and it was believed his records were lost in the 1973 fire at the NPRC 
* Radiology Report, printed on 5 June 2012, which shows a radiology impression showed 2 metallic shrapnel fragments in his mid/distal forearm and 1 metallic shrapnel fragment in the palmar soft tissues of the hand

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against and 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.

	a.  When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury.  The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award.

	b.  Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

* injury caused by enemy bullet
* shrapnel
* or other projectile created by enemy action
* injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap
* injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent
* injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire and/or concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions

14.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's complete records are not available for review with this case.  However, his DD Forms 214 for both periods of service coupled with his award of the Army Commendation Medal and his DA Form 20 were sufficient to adjudicate his case. 

2.  There is no available evidence of record and the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence provided showing he show he sustained a wound/injury as a result of enemy action, received treatment, and that treatment was made a matter of official record for award of the Purple Heart during his periods of service in Vietnam.  Additionally, his complete medical records, which are necessary to confirm that treatment was required, are not available for review.  Item 41 of his DA Form 20 does not show he was wounded.  Item 41 of this form does not list the Purple Heart.  His name is also not on the Vietnam casualty roster.

3.  He was awarded the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device for heroism in Vietnam on 2 October 1966.  He contends that after a Soldier was blown out of the truck, shots were fired at them as he was trying to get the Solder out of the open and into cover, and that was when he received the gift of shrapnel in his arm.  However, the orders stated, suddenly when a vehicle on the opposite side of the road was disabled by a Viet Cong land mine, with complete disregard for his personal safety, he grabbed his first aid kit, and exposing himself to hostile anti-personnel mines and the fuel leaking from the disabled vehicle, rushed to the aid of his injured comrades.  There is no mention of shots being fired.  Unfortunately, his award of the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device does not support his request for award of the Purple Heart.

4.  By regulation, to be awarded the Purple Heart it is necessary to establish that a Soldier was wounded or injured in action.  There must be evidence confirming the wound for which the award is being made was received as a direct result of, or was caused by enemy action, that the wound was treated by medical personnel, and a record of this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  Notwithstanding his contentions and his sincerity, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base award of the Purple Heart.  Therefore, he is not entitled to award of the Purple Heart.

5.  A review of his previous ABCMR ROP revealed the Consideration of Evidence section only addressed his period of service beginning with his reenlistment on 25 May 1966 using the DD Form 214, ending on 6 May 1969.  His available records did not contain a copy of the DD Form 214 ending on 24 May 1966.  That DD Form 214 was provided by the applicant for review with this request and was considered as evidence.  

6.  It is noted ADCARS houses an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 and is maintained by HRC.  This database is regularly used by the Board for verification/confirmation of general orders during the processing of an application requesting award(s).

7.  The ABCMR decides cases on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  Here, the applicant has not met the burden of proof.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support his award of the Purple Heart.

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 AR20130017334, dated 27 May 2014.



      __________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)                                         AR20140012154





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012154



8


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1