MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION   

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           30 January 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077540

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser       		Member	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his  military records by awarding him the Purple Heart (PH). 

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant reiterates his contention that he was wounded by a bobby trap while on patrol in Vietnam.  He adds that "I cleaned and dressed my wounds, actually pulling a long sliver of metal that was sticking out from my left calf.  I had the Medic take a look at the cuts upon his return the next day or day after.  I always assumed the wounds would be made a matter of record – but that did not happen."  The applicant charges that the Board's denial of his application based on the fact that the date he said he was wounded differed from the date his eyewitness said he was wounded was "unfair and a bit illogical."  The applicant contends that it is unreasonable to expect him and the eyewitness to remember the exact date. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR1998013572) on 22 April 1999.

In support of his request the applicant submits a statement from a veteran who states that he was in a different squad but in the same platoon as the applicant.  He relates that when the applicant's squad tripped a booby trap, his squad helped with the wounded and secured the area.  By the time he got to the scene of the booby trap, the wounded, along with the applicant, had been medevaced.  Members of the applicant's squad told him that the applicant's wounds were not as bad as some of the other soldiers.

Also submitted in support of his request is a statement from a veteran who states that he was wounded in the incident in question, but was so medicated that he has no recollection of who else was wounded.

The statements submitted by the applicant are new evidence that requires Board consideration.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the PH is awarded for wounds 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 a medical officer, and the medical 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 two new statements submitted by the applicant are insufficient to verify his entitlement to the PH.  

2.  The one veteran says he knows that the applicant was medevaced and was told he was wounded.  He did not personally see the applicant get wounded.
 
3.  The other veteran does not recall who was wounded the day the applicant's squad triggered the booby trap because of the medications he was given.

4.  As such, the Board is left with only one statement submitted by the applicant in which the veteran attests to have personally seen the applicant being wounded.  This is the same statement which was not accepted by the Board during its original consideration of this case because the veteran making that statement said that the applicant was wounded on a date which differs from the date cited by the applicant. 

5.  However, even if the applicant had submitted uncontestable statements from veterans who had personally witnessed him being wounded, it would not establish his entitlement to that award.  The applicant himself stated that he cleaned and dressed his own wounds; that a medic only looked at his cuts a couple of days later.  As such, the applicant's wound did not require treatment by a medical officer, and since there wasn't any medical treatment, there wasn't anything to make a matter of official record.  As such, the applicant's wound, if verified, would still lack two of the three criteria for award of the PH.

6.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

7.  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

___cjp___  ____wtm   ____ym  _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077540	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030130	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.