MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            5 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037827

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Jaime Perez		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:  In essence, reconsideration of his prior request for award of the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) with “V” Device and the Purple Heart.  He also requests, as a new issue, correction of his Social Security Number (SSN) on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty) issued on 
13 November 1975.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, he asks that the award of a BSM with 
“V” Device and the Purple Heart be shown on his DD Form 214 issued on 
13 November 1975.  He states, that he was awarded the BSM with “V” Device and that he received shrapnel wounds while in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He also states that an incorrect SSN __-__-____ is listed on his DD Form 
214 issued on 13 November 1975.  It should read __-__-____. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  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 15 May 1996 concerning award of the BSM with “V” Device and the Purple Heart. (COPY ATTACHED)

The applicant submits a copy of General Orders 2571 Headquarters, 1st Aviation Brigade, dated 7 September 1972, awarding him the BSM with “V” Device for action on 16 April 1972, along with a copy of the award citation.

Further, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214, issued on 
13 November 1975, showing that his SSN was __-__-____ , and a copy of his DD Form 214 issued on 29 April 1969 for a prior period of service, showing that his SSN was __-__-____.  To further support his contention of the correct SSN, he submits a copy of his social security card and a statement from the Social Security Administration verifying his correct SSN as __-__-____. 

On 24 June 1988, the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) certified that the applicant was entitled to the award of the BSM with “V” Device for heroic action on 16 April 1972, and authorized the issuance of the award elements to the applicant.  However, no action was taken to add this award to his DD Form 
214 dated 13 November 1975.  

The applicant also submits copies of a Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) rating decision, dated 30 April 1999, which shows service connection for residual, shell fragment wound, lower right leg and residual, shell fragment wound, right orbit (head).  Both these injuries were rated as "zero" percent disabling, but he was rated as 50 percent disabled for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  This is considered new material.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained 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, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

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.  That the evidence submitted shows his SSN should read as __-__-____, on the DD Form 214 issued on 13 November 1975.  An administrative correction to this document will be made.

2.  That the award of the BSM with “V” Device had been verified by a copy of a  general order issued by his command in the RVN and has been verified by the ARPERCEN.  This award will be administratively added to his DD Form 
214 issued on 13 November 1975.

3.  There is no indication in the applicant’s personnel records that he was awarded the Purple Heart.  There also is no indication in his personnel or medical records that he was wounded or treated for wounds due to hostile action while in the RVN.  He only makes reference to receiving treatment for these injuries while he was in an AWOL status for more than 3 years between 
1972 and 1975.

4.  The medical records previously considered by the Board, which the applicant provided, shows that the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Santa Rosa California, completed surgery for removal of shrapnel to his right leg on 5 February 1975.  The diagnostic evaluation prepared at the time states that the circumstances surrounding the injury was:  "Right Leg, March 1972-40MM exploded about one foot away in a burning barrel."

5.  He has been rated as “zero” percent disabled for this injury and an injury to his head by the DVA, although both are shown as service connected.

6.  However, the Board must conclude that the injuries to his leg and head were not as the result of hostile action.  They were caused by an accident, most likely due to an accidental explosion in his base area.  

7.  That the DVA has rated the injuries to his head and leg as service connected is within the purview of that agency.  From the limited evidence available, this appears to be a reasonable decision.  However, the fact that the DVA has granted service connection to the injuries in no way establishes that the injuries were the result of hostile action in operations against hostile forces in the RVN.   

8.  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 as it pertains to the Purple Heart.  

9.  In view of the foregoing, there is no bases 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.

NOTE:  The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division-St. Louis is requested to issue a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to show in item 3 that the applicant’s SSN is __-__-____ and in item 26 that the  BSM with “V” Device is an authorized award.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__slp___  __eja____  __jp_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037827	
SUFFIX		
RECON	AC95-10906 15MAY1996	
DATE BOARDED	5OCT2000	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UD (UHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	13NOV1975	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A71.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A01.00	
2.	A107.61	
3.	A110.00	
4.		
5.		
6.