RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            18 December 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003090185

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Klaus P. Schumann		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request for award of the Purple Heart (PH) and the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) and was wounded in action while serving in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He claims that he was wounded in action in mid June 1968, and as result he is entitled to the PH.  

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214), a copy of a correction to the DD Form 214 
(DD Form 215), a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) form appointing the VA as his representative (VA Form 21-22), a chronological record of medical care 
(SF 600), one page of a health record (DA Form 2658), and a VA rating decision dated, 4 May 2001.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2002074886, on 17 September 2002.

2.  As new argument, the applicant provides a copy of a medical treatment document from his record that shows that he was treated at the 7th Surgical Hospital on 17 June 1968 for a tiny fragment wound to his right humerus.

3.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he served in the RVN from 16 June 1967 through 13 July 1968, and that during this tour he was assigned to the 214th Combat Aviation Battalion, from 16 June through 17 August 1967, the 191st Assault Helicopter Company, from 18 August through 23 October 1967, and the 135th Aviation Company, from 24 October 1967 through 11 July 1968.  There is no indication that he served with an infantry unit during his tour in the RVN.  Item 40 (Wounds) is blank, which indicates that he was never wounded or injured in action during his tenure on active duty.  

4.  A review of the casualty listing for the RVN does not show the applicant as having been wounded during his tour in Vietnam.  Additionally, the historical files of the 135th Aviation Company, 12th Aviation Group and the 7th Surgical Hospital, RVN were reviewed at the National Archives, College Park, Maryland. This search failed to provide any documentary evidence to show that the applicant was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action while serving in the RVN.  

5.  During its original review of the case, the Board found no military records that supported the applicant’s claim that he was wounded in action or that he was ever treated for a wound or injury received as a direct result of or that was caused by enemy action.  The Board also concluded that the evidence of record showed the applicant served in aviation units during his tour of duty in the RVN, and that he did not serve in a qualifying infantry unit that would entitle him to receive the CIB.  

6.  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.  A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained in action.  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.  

7.  Chapter 8 of the awards regulation contains guidance on awarding Badges and Tabs.  Paragraph 8-6 contains the criteria for awarding the CIB.  It states, in pertinent part, that there are basically three requirements for award of the CIB; the soldier must be an infantryman satisfactorily performing infantry duties; must be assigned to an infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat; and must actively participate in such ground combat.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is entitled to the PH.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  By regulation, in order to award the PH it is necessary to establish that a soldier was wounded in action, that the wound required treatment by a medical officer, and that the record of medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

2.  The evidence of record provides no confirmation that the applicant was ever wounded in action.  Although the medical treatment record now provided by the applicant shows that he received treatment for a tiny fragment wound to his right humerus on 17 June 1968, it gives no indication that this injury was the direct result of or caused by enemy action.  Thus, there is no new evidentiary basis to support award of the PH.  

3.  Further, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim of entitlement to the CIB.  By regulation, in order to qualify to receive the CIB a member must have served in a qualifying infantry unit at such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and must actively participate in such ground combat.  As indicated in the Board’s original decisional document, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant was assigned to aviation units and did not serve with a qualifying infantry unit during his RVN tour.  As a result, he is not entitled to receive the CIB.

4.  The applicant has failed to provide any new evidence that would cause a change to the original findings and recommendation of the Board.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  _____  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  _____  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JA___  __YM__  __RO___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002074886, dated 17 September 2002.

		Raymond V. O’Connor
		   CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090185	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.PH	107.0015.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.