MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           7 August 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059321

	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	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 just before leaving Vietnam he asked about receiving the PH and was told that he would have to go somewhere up north to receive the medal and since he was leaving country and did not want to stay he left without getting the award.  In support of his application, he submits a rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214). 

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

On 28 September 1966, he was inducted into the Army of the United States for 
2 years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training (AIT) and Fort Hood, Texas and was awarded military occupational specialty 11D (Armor Intelligence Specialist) and remained at Fort Hood for his first permanent duty station. 

The applicant’s Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was reassigned to Vietnam and arrived there on 10 August 1967.  This record contains no entry in block 40 (wounds) and has no other remarks recorded that would indicate that he was ever wounded or injured in action.  Further, his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) includes no official orders or other documents that suggest he was entitled to the PH.  

On 9 August 1968, the applicant departed Vietnam for the United States in order to process for separation.  His MPRJ contains a Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 10 August 1968, which he prepared in connection with his separation physical examination.  He made no entry in this form indicating that he was ever treated for a wound or injury received in action.  

The MPRJ also contains a SF Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 10 August 1968, which documents the separation physical examination taken by the applicant on that date.  This form contains no entries that would indicate the applicant was ever wounded or injured in action and confirms that he was cleared for separation by competent medical authority.

On 10 August 1968, he was released from active duty (REFRAD), in the rank of specialist four/E-4, after completing a total of 1 year, 9 months, and 13 days of active military service.  At this time he was issued and authenticated with his signature a properly constituted DD Form 214.  This document confirms that he was honorably separated, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of early separation of overseas returnee.  

The DD Form 214 also shows that during the applicant’s active duty tenure he earned the following awards:  Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; Vietnam Campaign Medal; and 
2 Overseas Bars.  There is no PH entry or any other remarks entered in this separation document that would suggest he was entitled to the PH at the time. 

The applicant provides a copy of a VA Form 21-6796 (Rating Decision), dated 
9 December 1968, which indicates that in March 1968, while he was in Vietnam, the applicant sustained fragment wounds to the neck and hand.  This document does not indicate how the applicant received these fragment wounds or what official military medical record documentation was used to support this finding.  It does however, confirm that no significant medical findings were made at the time of his discharge. 

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 evidence of record and the independent evidence submitted by the applicant, the Board finds an insufficient evidentiary basis on which to support awarding the PH.  

2.  By regulation, 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.  

3.  While the evidence provided by the applicant from the VA indicates that he received fragment wounds to the neck and hand, it does not provide confirmation that this injury was received in or as a result of action against the enemy.  

4.  Further, the VA rating decision does not clarify what official military medical records were used to support their finding but does confirm no significant medical findings were made at the time of the applicant’s discharge.  Thus, while the Board wishes to commend the applicant on his exemplary service during Vietnam, it is forced to conclude that the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support awarding the PH has not been met in this case. 

5.  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.

6.  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   _  __TBR __  __RKS__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059321	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/08/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/08/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Early Release/Overseas Returnee	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.