DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No.  2011-058 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION 

 
 
This proceeding was conducted according to the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and 
section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  Chair  docketed  the  application  for 
reconsideration upon receipt of the applicant’s completed application on December 20, 2010, and 
subsequently prepared the final decision as required by 33 CFR § 52.61(c).  The application on 
reconsideration was assigned Docket No. 2011-058. 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  August  18,  2011,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATION 

 
 
As in the original proceeding, the applicant asked the Board on reconsideration to correct 
his record to show that he received a Purple Heart Medal for injuries suffered during combat in 
Vietnam.   
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING - BCMR No. 1999-079 

 

In his original application, the applicant stated that he suffered burns to the right side of 
his  body  and  knee  from  a  machine  gun  barrel  that  he  operated  during  combat  operations  in 
Vietnam.    He  stated  that  he  reported  the  injury  to  his  executive  officer.    His  military  record 
showed  that  he  served  for  8  months  and  16  days  in  the  Republic  of  Vietnam.    However,  his 
military  record  did  not  show  that  he  was  injured  during  combat  or  that  he  was  treated  for  a 
combat related injury.   The Coast Guard was unable to locate his medical record. 
 
 
In the Coast Guard advisory opinion for the original application, the Office of the Chief 
Counsel  of the Coast  Guard  (currently referred to as the Office of the Judge Advocate General 
(JAG))  stated  that  according  to  Article  2.B.11.  of  the  Medals  and  Awards  Manual,  the 
Commandant  may  award  the  Purple  Heart  to  a  member  who  is  wounded  while  serving  in  the 
Coast  Guard,  in  any  action  with  an  opposing Armed  Force  of  a  foreign  country  in  which  the 
Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged. The Chief Counsel also noted that 

 

 

the  wound  for  which  the  award  is  made  must  have  required  medical  treatment.        The  Chief 
Counsel noted the lack of evidence in the applicant’s military record supporting his claim that he 
was  injured  during  combat  in  Vietnam  and  the  lack  of  evidence  that  he  received  medical 
treatment for an injury.  Therefore, the Chief Counsel recommended that the Board grant relief 
on  the  condition  that  the  applicant  provide  evidence  that  he  was  injured  during  combat  and 
explain why he did not receive medical treatment for his injury.   
 
On  the  issue  of  timeliness,  the  Chief  Counsel  stated  that  despite  the  fact  the  statute  of 
 
limitations has run in the case, it would be an injustice to deny relief if the applicant did, in fact, 
sustain the combat injuries alleged.   
 
 
In  response  to  the  advisory  opinion  in  Docket  No.  1999-079,  the  applicant  submitted  a 
statement from then ex-spouse.  She stated that in 1970, prior to their divorce, during a period of 
rest  and  recreation  the  applicant  showed  her  his  burns  and  said  they  were  the  result  of  combat 
action.  She stated that he still had the scars when he returned home.  The applicant stated the he 
did  not  receive  medical  treatment  because  there  was  no  medical  officer  available  to  treat  his 
wounds at that time. 
 
On December 9, 1999, the Board issued a final decision  denying the applicant’s request 
 
for the Purple Heart.  The Board determined that the application was untimely.  In this regard, the 
applicant  was  discharged  in  1971  and  did  not  file  his  application  with  the  Board  until  1999, 
thereby exceeding the Board’s 3-year statute of limitations.  The Board also found that it was not 
in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the  untimeliness  because  the  applicant  failed  to  provide  a 
persuasive reason for not filing his timely application sooner and because he failed to show that 
he was likely to prevail on the merits of his claim for the Purple Heart because he did not provide 
evidence  that  he  received  medical  treatment  for  his  injury.    The  Board  concluded  the  decision 
with the following two findings: 
 

5.  [Due] to the passage of time, the applicant’s less than compelling reasons for 
the  27  year  delay,  and  the  lack  of  evidence  establishing  that  he  meets  the 
requirements for the Purple Heart, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of 
justice to waive the statute of limitations in this case. 
 
6.  Accordingly, the case is denied for untimeliness and for failure to demonstrate 
any error or injustice.     

 

CURRENT APPLICATION ON RECONSIDERATION  

BCMR No. 2011-058 

 

Since the denial of his  application in  1999, the applicant  has submitted several  requests 
 
for  reconsideration  of  the  Purple  Heart  issue.    On  November  9,  2010,  the  Chair  informed  the 
applicant  that  his  most  request  for  reconsideration  was  granted  because  he  had  submitted  new 
evidence  from  his  then-commanding  officer  (CO)  verifying  that  he  received  injuries  during  a 
combat  operation  in  Vietnam  and  that  he  received  medical  treatment  from  a  fellow  shipmate 
under the direction of the executive officer because the cutter did not have a medical officer.  The 
CO wrote the following: 

 

 

 

I write in support of the [applicant’s] request for the award of the Purple Heart . . . 
[The applicant] was a member of the crew of the USCGC POINT GRACE during 
the time in which I served as Grace’s [CO].  As a unit of Coast Guard Squadron 
One, Division 13, we patrolled various areas of the Mekong Delta during the fall 
of  1969  and  spring  of  1970.    During  one  of  these  patrols,  then  [the  applicant] 
serving as a .50 caliber  machine  gunner, received burns on multiple areas of his 
body as a result of combat operations.  These burns were diagnosed by me and the 
cutter’s executive officer (XO) (who also carried the designation as unit “medical 
officer”) as being moderately severe (first and second degree), but not warranting 
a medical evacuation.  These burns were treated over the course of the remaining 
patrol  period  by  [the  applicant]  and  the  [cutter’s]  cook,  who  was  trained  in  first 
aid  and  held  the  General  Quarters  billet  of  first  aid  responder  (i.e.  medic).  
Treatment was provided with my knowledge and with the oversight of the [XO].  
No other form of medical attention was available to [the applicant].   

 

 
The  applicant  also  requested  to  be  awarded  the  Expert  Pistol  Shot  Medal,  which  the 
Coast Guard already administratively granted to the applicant.  A DD 215 has been issued to the 
applicant showing that he earned the Expert Pistal Shot Medal.  Therefore, the issue with regard 
to the Expert Pistol Shot Medal is moot and will not be addressed further in this decision. 
   

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  July  25,  2011,  the  Judge Advocate  General  (JAG)  of  the  Coast  Guard  submitted  an 
advisory  opinion recommending that  the  Board  grant  relief in  accordance with  a memorandum 
from the Commander, Personnel Service Command (PSC).    
 
 
PSC  stated  that  it  was  within  the  limits  of  the  Medals  and Awards  Manual  to  grant  the 
applicant’s request for the Purple Heart.  PSC based its recommendation upon the letter from the 
applicant’s CO.  In this regard, PSC stated the following: 
 

2.    This  determination  [to  recommend  relief]  is  made  based  upon  the  narrative 
dated  June  28,  2011,  provided  by  the  applicant’s  then  [CO]  .  .  .  in  that  the 
applicant did in fact receive medical care from a medical officer. 
 
3.  According to [the Medical Manual], Chapter 9.A.2.b. . . . “In the absence of a 
permanently  attached  medical  officer,  the  vessel’s  [XO]  will  have  direct 
responsibility  for  medical  matters  when  no  medical  officer  is  attached  to  the 
vessel. 
 
4.   In the  applicant’s case, there was no permanently attached medical  officer to 
the cutter. . . .  As such, the vessel’s [XO] assumes this capacity.  As the account 
provided by the applicant’s [CO] states that the vessel’s [XO] provided oversight, 
diagnosis, and care, the question now focuses on a lack of physical documentation 
of the injury having been entered in the applicant’s record.   
 

 

 

 

5.    The  absence  of  medical  documentation  of  the  injury  in  question  is  clearly 
administrative  in  nature.    The  lack  of  specific  medical  documentation  under 
extreme  combat  actions  as  this  applicant  faced  should  not  invalidate  the  injury 
incurred.    Moreover,  eye  witness  accounts  in  the  form  of  first-hand  testimony 
from  the  applicant’s  chain  of  command  are  a  reasonable  attestation  that  the 
applicant suffered an injury by hostile enemy action during combat operations.  In 
this particular case, the applicant has met his burden to substantiate a claim for the 
Purple Heart.    

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
Guard and he agreed that he should is entitled to relief.     

On July 29, 2011, the Board received the applicant’s response to the views of the Coast 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

1.  The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 of title 10 

military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission and applicable law: 
 
 
of the United States Code. 
 
 
2.  Although the Board found that the applicant’s original application was untimely and 
that  it  was  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the  untimeliness,  this  Board  upon 
reconsideration  modifies  that  ruling  and  finds  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the 
untimeliness and consider the application on the merits.  In this regard, the Board notes that the 
advisory opinion in the original application stated that it would be an injustice not to correct the 
applicant’s  record  if  he  in  fact  sustained  combat  injuries  as  alleged.  However,  in  the  original 
case,  the  applicant  did  not  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  he  sustained  combat 
injuries  that  required  treatment  by  a  medical  officer,  a  requirement  for  the  Purple  Heart.  
However,  since  that  decision,  the  applicant  has  obtained  sufficient  evidence  that  supports  his 
claim for the Purple Heart.  In light of this new evidence, the Board agrees with the then-Chief 
Counsel  and  finds  that  it  would  be  a  serious  injustice  to  deny  the  Purple  Heart  to  a  service 
member  who  was  injured  in  combat.      The  Board  also  notes  that  neither  the  JAG  nor  PSC 
objected to granting relief on reconsideration.   
 

3.    With  regard  to  the  merits,  the  Board  agrees  with  the  advisory  opinion  on 
reconsideration  and finds  based upon the statement  from  the applicant’s CO, that  as a result of 
combat operations, the applicant received burns on multiple areas of his body while operating a 
.50 caliber machine gun.  The CO also stated that he and the XO diagnosed the applicant’s burns 
as being moderately severe but not  warranting a medical evacuation and that the applicant was 
treated for the burns by the cutter’s medic, under the oversight of the XO.    

 
4.  PSC  stated  that  because  there  was  no  medical  officer  assigned  to  the  cutter,  the  XO 

served in that capacity according to Article to 9.A.2.b of the Medical Manual.   

 

 

 

5.    The  Board  finds  that  the  applicant  has  proved  by  a  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  that  he  suffered  burns  to  his  body  during  combat  operations  in  Vietnam  for 
which  he  received  medical  treatment.    Therefore,  he  meets  the  requirements  for  the 
Purple Heart.   

 
6.  Accordingly the applicant is entitled to relief.   

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE] 

 
 
 

 

 

 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 Donna A. Lewis 

The application of former XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for correction of his military record 
is  granted.    His  record  shall  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  is  entitled  to  wear  the  Purple  Heart 
Medal for injuries sustained in combat operations in Vietnam.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 Paul B. Oman 

 

 
 
 Darren S. Wall