MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:           19 June 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086165

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 his military records be corrected to show award of the Purple Heart (PH). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was wounded in action on 21 January 1967 in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He believes that PH orders were published, but he was medically evacuated prior to an award presentation.  In support of his application, he submits copies of the following documents:  Disposition Form (DA Form 2496-1), dated 18 May 1967, SUBJECT: Recommendation for Medical Restriction from Flight Duty; Letter request for PH orders, dated 14 August 1989, addressed to the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM); Clinical Record (Standard Form 513),dated 27 December 1967;  and an ARPERSCOM awards branch letter, dated 17 August 1990.  

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

On 31 December 1980, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD), for the purpose of retirement, after completing 20 years, 4 months, and 23 days of active military service. The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to him at this time confirms that he held the rank of chief warrant officer four (CW4), and he was serving in primary specialty number 761A (General Supply Technician).

The DD Form 214 also shows that during his active duty tenure, the applicant earned the following awards:  Legion of Merit; Meritorious Service Medal; Army Commendation Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster); Air Medal (16th Award); Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with 
1 bronze service star; Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; and Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation.  The PH is not included in this list of authorized awards.  

The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no orders or documents indicating that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH while he was serving in the RVN.  

The applicant provides a copy of a Standard Form 513 that shows he was injured in an aircraft accident in the RVN on 21 January 1967.  This document confirms that he was treated for an open fracture of the left tibia, as well as a compound would of his left ankle with disruption of posterior ankle capsule without nerve or artery damage.  However, the Standard Form 513 contains no indication or confirmation that the aircraft accident was the direct result of enemy action, or that he was entitled to, recommended for, or awarded the PH as a result of these injuries.  

In the 17 August 1990 ARPERSCOM awards branch letter, the applicant was informed that a search of the records failed to produce evidence that he was wounded or injured as a direct result of hostile action.  It also indicated that accidental injuries received in a combat zone are not considered wounds received in action, and as a result there was no authority to award the applicant the PH.  

During the review of this case, the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster was reviewed to determine if the applicant was ever reported as a battle casualty while he was serving in the RVN.  His name was not included in this official DA list of RVN casualties.  In addition, a member of the Board staff contacted Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) awards officials to determine if the applicant was ever awarded the PH.  This inquiry produced a negative result, the applicant’s name is not recorded in the PH database.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 prescribes the policy for the Army awards program. Paragraph 2-8 contains the policy for awarding the PH, and it states, in pertinent part, that the PH 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.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he is entitled to receive the PH for the injuries he received in an aircraft accident while serving in the RVN.  However, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief.  

2.  By regulation, the PH is authorized for personnel who are wounded or injured as a direct result of enemy action.  The evidence of record gives no indication that the aircraft accident that resulted in the applicant’s injuries was the direct result of hostile action.  Further, neither the DA Vietnam Casualty Roster or PERSCOM records indicate that the applicant was categorized as a combat casualty during his service in the RVN, or that he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH.  

4.  The evidence of record does confirm that the applicant was injured in an aircraft accident in the RVN that was not a direct result of enemy action. As a result, the Board finds that the regulatory criteria required to support award of the PH has not been met in this case.  Thus, it is compelled to deny the applicant’s request for the PH in the interest of all those who served in the RVN and who faced similar circumstances.

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

JS____  __WDP___  __LEM__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086165	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	 DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 61	107.0015	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.