MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       .

	BOARD DATE:            19 August 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003088053

	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:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 is requesting the PH for combat wounds he incurred while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He encloses a packet containing a morning report extract that contains an entry documenting his return to his unit from the 22nd Surgical Hospital.

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

On 31 January 1982, he was honorably released from active duty for the purpose of retirement.  At the time, he had completed a total of 20 years, 3 months, and 18 days of active military service, and he held the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC).  

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation, 31 January 1982, shows that he earned the following awards during his tenure on active duty:  Armed Forces Reserve Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with 7 bronze service stars; Army Commendation Medal with Valor (“V”) Device 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster; Bronze Star Medal; Joint Service Commendation; Meritorious Service Medal; 
Air Medal (2nd Award); Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 Device; Overseas Service Bars; Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; Army Service Ribbon; and Overseas Service Ribbon.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his separation.  

The applicant’s record confirms that the applicant served in the RVN from 
27 June 1968 through 26 June 1969, and again from 10 January through 
24 February 1973.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no documents or orders that indicate the applicant was ever wounded or injured in action, or recommended for or awarded the PH.  The medical documents on file are limited, but also fail to indicate that the applicant was ever treated for a wound or injury received a result of or caused by enemy action.  

The applicant provides a copy of a morning report extract from 4 June 1969.  This document lists his name as a reassignment gain and shows that he was reassigned back into the unit from the 22nd Surgical Hospital, RVN on 19 May 1969.  The morning report entry provides no information in regard to the reason for the applicant’s hospitalization.  

In connection with the processing of this case, a member of the Board 
staff reviewed the Department of the Army (DA) Vietnam Casualty Roster, 
which contains the names of those soldiers wounded or injured in action in the RVN.  The applicant’s name was not included in this official DA list of RVN casualties.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army’s awards policy. Paragraph 2-8 contains guidance on awarding the Purple Heart.  It states, in pertinent part, that the PH is authorized to members who are wounded in action.  It further defines a wound as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained in action.  It also stipulates that the wound for which a PH is being awarded must have required treatment by a medical officer, and the records of medical treatment for the wound or injury for which the PH is being awarded 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 claim of entitlement to the PH, but finds insufficient evidence to support this contention.  In order to support the award of the PH, the regulatory burden of proof requires that there be evidence to show that the soldier was wounded or injured in action, that the wound for which the award is being made required treatment by military medical personnel, and this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  

2.  The evidence of record while showing that the applicant was hospitalized while serving in the RVN, gives no indication that he was hospitalized as a result of being wounded or injured as a result of enemy action.  Further, there is no medical evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant to confirm that he was wounded or injured in action.  These factors coupled with the fact that the applicant’s name is not included in the DA Vietnam Casualty Roster leads the Board to conclude there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim of entitlement to the PH.  

3.  The applicant is advised that the veracity of his claim that he was hospitalized in the RVN as a result of a combat related injury is not in question.  However, given the lack of evidence to satisfy the regulatory burden of proof required to support the award of the PH, the Board regrettably must deny the requested relief in the interest of all those who served in the RVN and who faced similar circumstances.  

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

___MVT__  ___FE__  ___JM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088053	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/08/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/01/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	10 USC 3911	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.