MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            5 February 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064053

	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:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 was never awarded the PH for wounds he received in action in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) on 8 April 1969.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of an unsigned, undated, Disposition Form (DF) (DA Form 2496), which contained the following subject:  “Award of the Combat Infantryman’s Badge”.  

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

He entered active duty on 1 September 1967 and continuously served for 
3 years, 1 month, and 16 days, until being honorably separated on 24 October 1970.  

The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) confirms that he was assigned to the Special Operations Augmentation, 5th Special Forces Group, 
1st Special Forces, RVN, and served as radio teletype operator from 8 March 1969 through 21 October 1970.  Item 40 (Wounds) of his DA Form 20 contains no entry and the PH is not included in the list of earned awards contained in item 
41 (Awards and Decorations) of this record. 

There is a Report of Medical Examination (SF 88), dated 24 October 1970, on file that confirms the applicant underwent a separation medical examination on that date.  This document makes no reference to the applicant being wounded in action or to any medical treatment related to his being wounded or injured in action.  The applicant made the following comments in item 73 (Notes) of this form:  “Since my last physical my condition has not changed”; “I have reviewed my medical records”; and “My condition is good.”  The physician that conducted the examination entered no comments in Item 74 (Summary of Defects) and he medically cleared the applicant for separation.  

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to and authenticated by the applicant with his signature on 24 October 1970, the date of his release from active duty (REFRAD), confirms that he held the rank of sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 05C4P during his tenure on active duty.  This document also lists the awards earned by the applicant during his active duty tenure; however, this list of awards does not include the PH.  The applicant signed this separation document in item 32 (Signature of Person being Transferred or Discharged), thereby verifying the data contained therein, and there is no indication that he raised the PH as an issue during his separation processing. 

The applicant provides a copy of a DF in support of his application.  This 
DF contained the following subject:  “Award of the Combat Infantryman’s Badge” and it contained an entry that indicated that he had been wounded in action.  However, this document was unsigned, undated, and it provided no facts and circumstances supporting the entry indicating that he had been wounded in action.  It also gave no indication of what official record verification was to confirm he was wounded in action and that he was treated for that wound by military medical personnel. 

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards.  Paragraph 
2-8 contains the regulatory guidance pertaining to awarding the PH.  It states, in pertinent part, that in order to support the award of the PH, it is necessary to establish that the wound, for which the award is being made, required treatment by a medical officer, this treatment must be supported by records of the medical treatment for the wound or injury received in action, and this treatment 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 contention that he is entitled to be awarded the PH based on his having been wounded in action in the RVN.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  By regulation, in order to receive the PH, a member must have been wounded in action, the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, and this treatment must have made a matter of official record.  The evidence of record is void of any indication that the applicant was ever wounded in action, treated for a wound received in action by military medical personnel, or that the treatment for a wound received in action was made a matter of official record.  

3.  Further, the DF provided by the applicant, while containing an entry that indicates he was wounded in action, was unsigned, undated, and there was no indication that this document was properly prepared, processed, or approved by the proper authority.  While the Board acknowledges and wishes to congratulate the applicant on his exemplary record of combat service, it concludes that the regulatory burden of proof necessary to award the PH has not been met in this case.  Therefore, the Board is compelled to deny the requested relief. 

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

___JH___  __KAK__  __RA____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064053	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/02/05	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1970/10/24	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  61	107.0015	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.