RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 May 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080001775 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. Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Chairperson Member Member 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 earlier petition to be awarded the Purple Heart (PH). 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he disagrees with the original Board decision in his case. He claims that he was wounded in action in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) in March 1968, and should be awarded the PH. 3. The applicant provides a letter to his wife, dated 11 March 1968, in support of his reconsideration request. 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 AR20070011373, on 20 December 2007. 2. During its original review of the case, the Board found no evidence of record to support the applicant's claim that he was wounded in action in the RVN. The Board noted that there were no PH award orders on file in his record and no personnel service record entries that indicated that the applicant was ever wounded in action or awarded the PH. It further noted that this name was not included on the Vietnam Casualty Roster. As a result, it concluded there was no evidence to support award of the PH in this case. 3. The applicant provides a letter he wrote to his wife on 11 March 1968, as new evidence. In the letter he indicates he got something that almost put him in the hospital. He explained that the only thing that stopped it was a magazine that it went through that caused it to lose all its force, and resulted in his back being barely scratched. 4. Item 40 (Wounds) of the applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) is blank, and the PH is not included in the list of awards contained in Item 41 (Awards and Decorations). 5. The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is void of any orders or other documents that indicate the applicant was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority; and of any medical treatment records that indicate he was ever treated for a wound he received as a result of enemy action. 6. On 3 July 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active duty after completing 1 year, 11 months, and 27 days of active military service. The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued on the date of his separation did not include the PH in the list of awards contained in Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), and the applicant authenticated the DD Form214 with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged) on the date of his separation. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army's awards policy. Paragraph 2-8 contains the regulatory guidance pertaining to awarding the PH. It states, in pertinent part, that in order to award a PH there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action; that it required treatment by military medical personnel; and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for reconsideration to be awarded the PH, and the letter to his wife he provided were carefully considered. However, there still remains an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 2. By regulation, in order to support award of the PH, there must be evidence that the member was wounded as a result of enemy action; that the wound required treatment by military medical personnel; and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. 3. Notwithstanding the letter the applicant wrote to his wife, which indicated he was wounded when he was barely scratched by some object, the evidence of record contains no indication that the he was wounded as a result of enemy action, or that he was ever treated for a combat-related wound by military medical personnel. 4. Item 40 of the applicant's DA Form 20 is blank, which indicates he was never wounded in action, and the PH is not included in Item 41. Further, there are no orders or other documents on file in his OMPF that indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority, and there are no medical treatment records on file that indicate he was ever treated for a combat- related wound or injury while serving in the RVN. 5. Absent any evidence of record that confirms the applicant was wounded in action or treated for a combat-related wound or injury while serving in the RVN, or that corroborates the information contained in his 1968 letter to his wife, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH still has not been satisfied in this case, and it would not be appropriate or serve the interest of all those who served in the RVN and who faced similar circumstances to support award of the PH at this late date. 6. 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. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to support amendment of the original Board decision in this case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x ____ ___x____ 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 AR20070011373, dated 20 December 2007. _______x_______________ CHAIRPERSON