MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061930

	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. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 on 5 June 1970, he was treated for a bleeding head wound, shock, and back pain.  He claims that he was interviewed for the PH and provided information for a hometown release of news; however, this process was never completed.  In support of his application, he submits various medical evaluation documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) between the years 1985 and 2001.  

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

On 9 July 1969, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He was trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and upon completion of training, he was assigned to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).

On 10 December 1969, he arrived in the RVN and was further assigned to Company A, 46th Engineer Battalion, to perform duties as a general vehicle repairman.  He served in the RVN until 12 November 1970, at which time he was reassigned to Fort Meade, Maryland.  On 21 December 1970, he arrived at Fort Meade and he served there until 14 January 1972, when he was honorably separated after completing 2 years, 6 months, and 6 days of his enlistment. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by him on the date of his separation does not include the PH as an authorized award.

The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that during this enlistment period he earned the following awards:  National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal; Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; RVN Civil Actions Honor Medal; Army Commendation Medal; and Good Conduct Medal.  The awards listed in his record do not include the PH and there is no entry in block 40 (wounds) that would indicate he was wounded in action during this period of service.  In addition, there are no medical records available from this enlistment that show the applicant was ever wounded or injured in action during his tour in the RVN.

The applicant subsequently reenlisted and served for 3 years between 13 April 1973 and 12 April 1976.  He reenlisted a second time on 22 September 1976 and was discharged from this period of service under other than honorable conditions on 27 July 1979, after completing just 2 months and 1 days of creditable service on the enlistment and accruing 975 days of time lost due to being absent without leave (AWOL).  

None of the military personnel or medical records from any of his periods of service contain any reference to his being wounded in action or receiving the PH. Further, there is no indication in his records that he ever raised his PH entitlement as an issue during any of these enlistment periods or when he processed for separation from them.  

In support of his application, the applicant provides various medical evaluation documents prepared by the VA at different times between the years 1985 and 2001.  These documents make reference to an injury the applicant received during his first enlistment; however, no specific reference or confirmation of his being wounded in action is documented.  

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 that did not list the PH as an earned award.  There is also no evidence of record to show he ever raised this issue during any of his subsequent periods of service. 

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

__INW___  ___SK__  __KAH___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061930	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/11/15	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.