MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058318

	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. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 request for the Purple Heart (PH). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect that he never received the PH to which he was entitled based on being wounded or injured in action in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the published Proceedings, Docket Number AR2000040903, dated 12 September 2000 (Copy Attached).

The applicant provided through his Member of Congress (MOC) a decision rendered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Houston, Texas that determined that a scar he had on the cornea of his left eye was a service connected disability and military clinical records of treatment that confirm he was treated for an eye injury he received in the RVN on 10 August 1969.  

Clinical records of treatment provided by the applicant confirm that on 14 August 1969 he was treated in the 14th Aviation Battalion dispensary for a small corneal abrasion to his left eye that he received as a result of being hit in the eye with a small piece of wire on 10 August 1969.  These documents also show that he was also seen for follow-up evaluation and treatment for this injury on the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th of August 1969.  However, the medical treatment records prepared during these visits contain no entries that refer to his eye injury being combat related or the result of any enemy action.  

On 20 June 2000, the Houston, Texas regional office of the VA published a letter that indicated that they had rendered a decision on the applicant’s claim for compensation.  They decided that the scar on the cornea of his left eye was service connected but that it was less than 10 percent disabling.  The letter further indicated that by law the VA cannot pay for disabilities that are less than 
10 percent disabling.

As indicated in the previous decisional document published by this Board, the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains no suggestion that he was ever entitled to or awarded the PH during his active duty tenure.  Further, the OMPF gives no indication that he was ever wounded or injured as a result of enemy action. 

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature confirms that he was honorably separated on 
27 August 1971 after completing a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 28 days of active military service.

Block 24 of the DD Form 214 contained a list of the awards and decorations the applicant earned during his active duty tenure.  The PH is not listed as an earned award in this block and there is no indication that the applicant addressed this omission or his PH entitlement at that time. 

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.  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.

2.  While the applicant has provided additional documents that clearly establish that the VA has determined his eye injury was a service connected disability and that he received and was treated for this eye injury in the RVN, they do not provide confirmation that the eye injury was combat related or as the result of enemy action.  

3.  In the opinion of the Board, the fact that the applicant received medical treatment for the eye injury in question by military medical personnel in the RVN made it even more likely that had this injury entitled him to receive a PH, this fact would have been established and made a matter of official record in his OMPF at that time.  

4.  Given the lack of any indication in the applicant’s military medical records or in his OMPF that he was awarded or entitled to the PH, the Board is compelled to presume that his eye injury was not combat related or received as a result of enemy action.  Thus, lacking convincing evidence to the contrary, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support awarding him the PH at this time. 

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

__MKP___  __KAK__  __RTD__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058318	
SUFFIX		
RECON	AR2000040903 	
DATE BOARDED	2001/10/02	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1971/08/27	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	OS Returnee	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.