MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030370

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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 in late November or early December of 1967, he was blown off of the top of a 5 ton truck.  He claims to have received a shrapnel wound to the back and that he was treated by a medic in the base camp right then and later he was treated by a doctor.  He was given pain and muscle relaxing pills and was told to stay in his cot for 3 days.  He explains that the location where they set up in was littered with unexploded mortar rounds and rockets.  On the second night they were there one of the unexploded rounds was set off and two men were killed and one wounded.  The doctor that had treated him for his wound was treating a patient on a truck when it hit a hole and he was ejected from the truck and was eventually medically evacuated.  He indicates that he has now found another soldier who was wounded and shipped out during the same incident.  This third party witness has provided a statement in support of the applicant’s request.  The applicant concludes by indicating that it took him 30 years to find his third party witness and he has still been unable to locate either the medic or the doctor who treated him.

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

On 14 November 1966 he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  Upon completion of AIT he was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Wheel Vehicle Mechanic) and he was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas for his first permanent duty station.  

The applicant was assigned to Vietnam and arrived there for duty on 30 July 1967.  The Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Qualification Record) for the applicant indicates that during his service in Vietnam he was promoted to the rank of specialist/E-5 in April 1968, which is the highest rank he held during this active duty period.  In addition, it indicates that he earned the following awards and decorations during his tour in Vietnam:  the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal/with 60 device and the Vietnam Service Medal.  The only other decoration shown in his DA Form 20 is the National Defense Service Medal. 

The DA Form 20 also shows that he became a patient in April 1968 based on having smashed a bone in his left leg, there is no indication that this injury was combat related.  He was reassigned to Fort Riley, Kansas as a patient and was later assigned to Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana where he completed his enlistment.  Block 40 (Wounds) of his DA Form 20 contains no entries and on 
21 December 1968, he authenticated this form with his signature indicating that he had fully audited his qualification record on that date. 

The DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that was issued to and signed by the applicant at the time of his separation did not include the PH in block 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).  This block indicates only that the applicant had earned the National Defense Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 device.  There is no indication in the record that the applicant raised the issue of a PH at this time.

In 1974 the applicant enlisted in the USAR.  During his enlistment processing he underwent a complete physical examination.  The Report of Medical Examination shows that he was determined to be medically fit for enlistment by competent medical authority.  Included with this physical examination was the Report of Medical History prepared by the applicant.  In this form he indicated only one previous injury during his prior service.  This was the smashed bone for which he was hospitalized in both Vietnam and Fort Riley, Kansas.  He made no mention of a shrapnel wound in Vietnam and indicated that he was in good health.  

The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR on 17 November 1975 and again his records from this period of service make no reference to a PH or to his ever raising the issue.  

The applicant has provided a witness statement from another soldier who he claims was serving with him at the time he was wounded.  In this statement the third party witness indicates that the applicant had to be taken to the aid station for treatment after a rocket exploded on the side of the road.  However, there is no record of this medical treatment in either the applicant’s qualification record or medical record.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 2-8 provides the criteria for award of the PH.  It states that the PH is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States. 

The regulation establishes that, while clearly an individual decoration, the PH differs from all other decorations in that an individual is not " recommended" for the decoration; rather he or she is entitled to it upon meeting specific criteria.  The regulation states, in pertinent part, that the wound for which the PH is being made must have required treatment by a medical officer and that the records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action 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.  Notwithstanding the third party witness statement provided in support of the applicant’s request, the Board is unable to establish the applicant’s entitlement to the PH.  Therefore, the Board concluded there was an insufficient basis on which to grant relief in this case. 

2.  The regulation governing the award of the PH clearly stipulates that in order to qualify for the award, the wound for which the award is being made must have required treatment by a medical officer and that the records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action must have been made a matter of official record.  There is no such supporting records in this case and the Board feels compelled to deny the applicant’s request, given he has failed to met the evidentiary test required by the governing regulation.  The Board feels it necessary to take this action in order to support and preserve the integrity of the awards system.  

3.  In addition, the Board found, even when taking into consideration the conditions under which the applicant claims to have received the wound, that it was reasonable to conclude that he had sufficient opportunity to raise this issue, or at least refer to the wound, in either a subsequent review of his qualification record or during the physical examination he took in 1974 in order to join the USAR.  

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 the aforementioned 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

__rgh___  __jps____  ___be___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030370	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/04/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	N/A	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 61	107.0015	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.