MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:	 

	BOARD DATE:            1 December 1999                
	DOCKET NUMBER:	AR1998014189

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                       records.
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any).

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by awarding him three Air Medals, three Purple Hearts, the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) or the Medal of Honor and a V device.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, his actions while serving in Vietnam he received combat wounds on at least three occasions and that his acts of valor warrant the Medal of Honor.  The applicant indicates that his company commander put him in for the Distinguished Service Cross but the recommendation appears to have been lost.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  The applicant’s case is reopened in accordance with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records Reconsideration Project (ABCMR-RP) criteria.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 22 February 1984 (COPY ATTACHED).  The applicant’s interim request was administratively closed.

The applicant had submitted requests for reconsideration which contained evidence and arguments that had not been referred for Board review.  The applicant resubmits these documents in concert with this review.

The applicant submits two statements from his former company commander (dated 14 Oct. 91 and 26 June 1998) which describe an incident in 1969 for which the company commander indicated that he may have started the paper work on the recommendation for the award of the DSC.

Statements from three fellow service members were submitted that indicate that they were aware of injuries to the applicant for which he received medical care.  The dates and locations for the incidents are not specific.

The applicant submits no evidence or arguments in relationship to his request for three Air Medals or the inclusion of a “V” device for one of his medals.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against the enemy or as a result of hostile action.  AR 672-5-1, paragraph 2-15.1, provides, in pertinent part, that the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the primary requirement for award of a decoration is that a formal recommendation be prepared and introduced into official military channels within 2 years of the act, achievement, or service to be recognized. The sole exception to the 2-year time limit occurs when there is conclusive evidence that a formal recommendation was submitted but was lost, or through inadvertence was never acted on by proper authority.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 states, in pertinent part, that the DSC is awarded for heroism or extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of the Medal of Honor.  The act or acts of heroism must be so notable and have involved such risk of life so as to set the individual apart from his comrades.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  Recommendations must be made within 2 years of the event or period of service and the award must be made within 3 years.  There are regulatory provisions for lost recommendations but not for late recommendations, reconsideration, nor for upgrading to a more prestigious award.  No precondition, such as promises of a specific award for the attainment of some particular goal, may be established.  Anyone may recommend another individual for an award and doing so is a subjective decision.  Likewise, the decision as to whether or not an award is approved, down graded or disapproved is subjectively made by the commander having approval authority.  Wartime approval authority for the DSC rests with commanders in the grade of major general or higher.  It may be delegated to brigadier generals commanding tactical units while filling a major general's position.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant has not submitted any medical evidence to support his contention of having received combat wounds. The statements of individuals are inadequate as the sole basis for an award of the Purple Heart because they do not fulfill the regulatory requirement that there be a record of medical treatment. 

2.  Although the applicant’s company commander indicates that he recalls starting a recommendation for the DSC, there is no indication that a formal recommendation was ever submitted nor that had it been submitted it would have been approved.  Further the incident as described was not so exceptional or so notable and involved such risk of life so as to set the individual apart from his comrades.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mkp__  __aao___  __eja ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998014189	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	19991201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	107.0001	
2.	107.0002	
3.	107.0012	
4.	107.0015	
5.		
6.