RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-00812
		INDEX CODE 107.00
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Purple Heart for an injury sustained in Vietnam in Aug or Sep 68.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he was serving in Vietnam, he sustained extensive injury and wounds at the hands of a Vietnamese officer in a combat zone. The ambush took place behind him inside the compound. He felt blunt force to his nose and face and was cut, right to left, across his nose and the left side of his face to the cheekbone. The next thing he remembered was seeing his fatigues saturated with blood. The security police arrived and transported him to the base dispensary where he received approximately 157 stitches inside and outside of his nose and face. The Office of Special Investigation explained that a Vietnamese officer had done the cutting with a rice-cutting sickle with a 10-inch curved blade.  He should have been awarded the PH because the injury occurred in a hostile zone by a hostile, unfriendly actor who intended to kill him, but the commander said he could not in “good conscience” recommend the award. This error has caused him considerable physical and mental anguish over the years. 

The applicant submits a personal statement, his DD Form 214, and a DD Form 398, Statement of Personal History. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 27 Dec 56.

His AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, appears to indicate he served a tour at Bien Hoa AB and Nha Trang Airport in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from 9 Nov 65 until around Nov 66, when he was assigned to Charleston AFB, SC. He was subsequently assigned to Phan Rang AB in the RVN around 22 Apr 68, and served as a munitions specialist/munitions storage crew chief until he departed for Cannon AFB, NM, in Apr 69. This was followed by a tour in Thailand during Jun 70-Jun 71. 

During the pertinent period, the applicant’s military medical records only report that, at 1400 hours on 25 Oct 68, he was “brought in from strip in ambulance” with a 5½-inch laceration on his face. The applicant was admitted and the wound was irrigated, injected with a local anesthetic, and sutured closed. There is no mention as to the cause of the injury. A follow-up visit on 4 Nov 68 noted the scar was “looking very well.” 

The applicant was retired in the grade of staff sergeant on 1 Jan 77 after 20 years and 4 days of active service. His DD Form 214 reflects 2 years, 1 month and 12 days of foreign/overseas service. 

A 20 Feb 87 Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision reported that all periods of the applicant’s active duty had not been verified. The rating decision added the applicant stated he “. . . had a nose injury requiring numerous stitches to close the wound while in Vietnam” and the “. . . veteran gave a history of a knife wound to the left side of the nose many years ago with a slowly progressive development of left nasal airway obstruction.” Another sentence in the same report indicated the applicant “. . . stated that he had been in Vietnam for three [sic] years, not wounded.” The applicant made no complaints of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the report concluded the service record did not support service-connection for, among other things, the nose and nervous conditions.

A 25 Aug 95 DVA evaluation noted the applicant complained of feelings of losing control over the past years. His latest episode apparently was precipitated by events in his church activity when he testified to his past experience and wrote of his “. . . traumatic experience of having been slashed on his nose by a chain knife which resulted in massive bleeding and several stitches” while he was in Vietnam. Psychological testing did not suggest PTSD. 

A 4 Mar 96 DVA rating decision denied the applicant’s claim for service-connected PTSD, concluding the records did not show a diagnosis of PSTD but rather an adjustment disorder. 

Pursuant to a request from the AFBCMR Staff, AFOSI/XI responded by email on 15 Sep 04 that no record of an OSI investigation could be found concerning the applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPR observes the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence showing the wound he received was the direct result of enemy action.  A review of his military record reveals insufficient medical documentation to substantiate his claim that he received any injury as a direct result of enemy action. Therefore, denial is recommended.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends the attack was from a hostile indigenous individual, but whether he was overtly a member of enemy forces or a Vietnamese infiltrator of the Republic of Vietnam Army would be forever unknown.  Extensive research would be needed to determine if the incident is recorded in the daily unit records or with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI).  He knows of no one either currently serving or alive among his acquaintances that know of the circumstances surrounding the incident.  The applicant requests his appeal for the PH be withdrawn so that his medical records could be sent to the DVA to settle a claim he has there.  [Note:  Pursuant to a 24 Aug 04 request from the Philadelphia DVA Regional Office, the AFBCMR Staff forwarded a copy of the applicant’s medical records to the DVA around 26 Aug 04.]

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded he should be awarded the PH.  We do not dispute the applicant received medical treatment for a facial laceration sustained on 25 Oct 68.  However, the records do not indicate, and the applicant did not establish, this injury was the direct result of enemy action.  The medical entry does not identify the laceration as an enemy wound.  As for an AFOSI investigation, AFOSI/XI advised no report pertaining to the applicant could be found.  Further, according to the applicant, his commander explained he could not “in good conscience” recommend award of the PH.  If the commander did not feel the injury warranted the PH, we are reluctant, based on the evidence before us, to override that decision.  Finally, the applicant has not sustained his claim of suffering “considerable physical and mental anguish” over the years as a causal effect of not receiving the PH.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  However, should the applicant be able to provide official documentation or witness statements supporting his contention his facial laceration was directly caused by enemy action, we would be willing to review his case for possible reconsideration.  Barring that submission, however, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 9 and 20 September 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00812 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, dated 7 Jul 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Sep 04.