IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 July 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080009117 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, through his Member of Congress, reconsideration of his earlier request for award of the Purple Heart. 2. The applicant makes no additional statement. 3. The applicant provides a letter of support, dated 24 April 2008, from a fellow Soldier. 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 AR20060015870 on 8 May 2007. 2. The statement of support provided by the applicant is new evidence that will be considered by the Board. 3. After having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 April 1971. He arrived in Vietnam and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 77th Cavalry, 3d Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), on 31 December 1971 where he performed duties as a rifleman. 4. The applicant’s complete service medical records are available. The only entries during his period of service in Vietnam are dated 19 May 1972, for viral gastroenteritis; and 20 May 1972, for a return for evaluation of progress. 5. The applicant departed Vietnam on 22 June 1972. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 21 November 1972. 7. The applicant’s name is not listed on the Vietnam Casualty Roster. Item 40 (Wounds) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show he was wounded. 8. The applicant provided a letter from a fellow Soldier, who stated he served with the applicant. He stated that in a particular “contact” the applicant sustained his injuries along with 22 others. 9. With his original case, the applicant provided a letter from his former platoon leader. The platoon leader stated he distinctly remembered the applicant being severely wounded in the eyes by enemy action and being medically evacuated by helicopter from the battlefield for treatment. 10. He provided with his original case a second letter of support from a fellow Soldier, who believed the applicant sustained an injury or wound to one of his eyes from enemy fire. He did not recall which eye was injured; however, the applicant wore a patch for several days. 11. Around April 1985, the applicant wrote to the Army requesting the medals that were on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that he did not receive; also an Army Good Conduct Medal that was not listed; a Bronze Star Medal with “V” device for an operation he was involved with on 24 and 25 February 1972; and the medals and citations earned by American Soldiers and by his unit from the South Vietnamese Government. 12. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Purple Heart 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 by medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The letter of support currently provided by the applicant, along with the two earlier letters of support, are insufficient to show the applicant met the eligibility criteria for award of the Purple Heart. 2. All three letters of support fail to indicate that the fellow Soldiers who wrote them were eye witnesses to the applicant’s being wounded. They fail to even identify the date on which he was injured or to provide any details of the action in which he was wounded. 3. The applicant’s service medical records are available. Those records show he was treated for a viral infection while in Vietnam. It is difficult to believe that the medical records would not have been annotated to show he was treated for a severe wound to his eyes. 4. More importantly, the applicant requested, in 1985, all of the awards he believed he was due. He requested, in part, the medals that were on his DD Form 214 that he did not receive and an Army Good Conduct Medal that was not listed on his DD Form 214. He was fully aware in 1985 of any awards he believed he was due that were not listed on his DD Form 214. The Purple Heart ranks higher in prestige than does the Army Good Conduct Medal, and yet the applicant did not request the Purple Heart in 1985. 5. At this time, the preponderance of the evidence fails to corroborate the letters of support provided by the applicant and fails to substantiate that he met the eligibility criteria for award of the Purple Heart. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___xx___ ___xx___ ___xx___ 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 AR200600158780 dated 8 May 2007. _________xxxx__________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080009117 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080009117 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1