MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001051291

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 effect, that he be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was wounded twice, treated by a field medic, and received medicine from the pharmacy.  He claims that it is his belief that he is entitled to at least one PH.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 29 May 1968, he enlisted in the Regular Army for three years.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Bliss, Texas and advanced individual training (AIT) at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty 12C (Bridge Specialist) and he was assigned to Vietnam for his first permanent duty station. 

On 5 February 1969, he arrived in Vietnam where he was assigned to Company E, 4th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, where he served until the completion of his tour on 3 February 1970, at which time he was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas.  

He arrived at Fort Hood in March 1970 and served there until May 1971, when he was confined at the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Bliss after returning to military control at the end of an extended period of being absent without leave (AWOL).  In July 1971, he was released from confinement and assigned to a unit at Fort Bliss to perform as a duty soldier.  He served in this capacity until his separation on 19 October 1971. 

The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), which he audited and verified on 19 July 1971, contains no entry in block 40 (wounds) and has no reference to the PH in block 41 (awards and decorations).  It does document his Vietnam service and his participation in the following campaigns of the Vietnam Conflict:  Vietnam Counter Offensive Phase VI; TET 69 Counter Offensive; Vietnam Summer Fall 1969; and the Vietnam Winter Spring 1970.

The Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that he was honorably separated on 19 October 1971, after completing a total 3 years of active military service.  It also shows that during his tenure on active duty he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Vietnam Service Medal.  This document contains no reference to his ever having been awarded the PH for being wounded or injured in action and the applicant authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature, thereby, verifying the data contained therein. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 2-8 contains the regulatory guidance pertaining to awarding the PH.  It states, in pertinent part, that the PH is awarded to any member wounded or killed while engaged in action against an armed enemy or hostile force.  

Paragraph 9-8b (2) defines a wound as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent while engaged in action against the enemy.  It also specifically states that in order to support awarding a member the PH, it is necessary to establish that the wound, for which the award is being made, required treatment by a medical officer.  This treatment must be supported by records of medical treatment for the wound or injury received in action, and 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.  Notwithstanding the contention of the applicant, after carefully examining the available evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by him, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis on which to support awarding the PH.  

2.  The available evidence contains no information to support the applicant’s claim of entitlement to the PH and there are no medical records available that verify that he was ever treated for a wound or injury received in action by a medical officer or that any treatment for a wound was ever made a matter of official record. 

3.  Further, the evidence of record contains no suggestion that the applicant raised the PH issue at the time of his separation when he authenticated the 
DD Form 214 issued to him, which did not list the PH as an earned award. 

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  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

__hbo___  ___jh ___  ___cla___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051291	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/04/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/10/19	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.