IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 March 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100021838 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 reconsideration of his request for award of the Purple Heart. 2. He believes there was inaccurate reporting of his wound via the morning reports. He acknowledges that in the original case, it was noted that his Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 22 September 1966, shows he was treated for a wound. He adds his name is omitted from the morning report for Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry (1/5th Cavalry). He opines that the fact his SF 600 verifies his treatment for a foot wound, even though the morning report omitted his name, represents an omission [but] subsequent validation of the cause of his wound. He quoted Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) pertaining to the award of the Purple Heart requiring medical treatment and offers that he was the company medic and attempted to treat himself. 3. He provides his self-authored statement and a copy of HHC, 1/5th Cavalry Morning Report, dated 22 September 1966. 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 AR20090015465, on 30 March 2010. 2. In his original self-authored statement, dated 9 September 2009, he stated: In March [1966], I was assigned to B company, 1st Battalion 5th Calvary as a platoon combat medic…Immediately after being assigned to Bravo Company, we were air assaulted into an enemy held village in the Bong Song area and quickly overran the village killing numerous enemy combatants as well as civilians. I tried to treat as many civilians with medical aid as time allowed. I captured one enemy combatant and engaged him with physical restraint. I injured my foot/cut/bleeding during the confrontation and was sent back to the aid station for minor surgery. 3. Additionally, his SF 600 shows he was treated on 22 September 1966. The record stated "Left great toe red, tender under 'proud flesh' at lateral edge." Disposition: "Trimmed lateral part of nail and cleaned up wound." 4. He submitted as new evidence a copy of an HHC, 1/5th Cavalry Morning Report, dated 22 September 1966. His name does not appear on this report. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that 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, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. Paragraph 2-8b(2) states that for the purpose of considering an award of the Purple Heart, a “wound” is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force, element, or agent sustained while in action in the face of the armed enemy or as a result of a hostile act of such enemy. The regulation states that the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The information contained on the applicant's SF 600 shows he was treated for a great toe condition in September 1966. He stated in his original statement that he had been injured in March 1966. He argues now, in effect, that the entry on the SF 600 validates treatment for his wound and that the omission from the company's morning report was an oversight. However, that argument and the SF 600 are not sufficient evidence to conclude that he is entitled to award of the Purple Heart. The available evidence does not substantiate that the September 1966 treatment was related to a March 1966 wound. 2. He has still failed to demonstrate he sustained a wound as a result of enemy action. Therefore, the overall merits of the case, including the HHC, 1/5th Cavalry Morning Report, are insufficient as a basis to reverse the ABCMR's previous decision. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 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 AR20090015465, dated 30 March 2010. _______ _ ___X____ ___ 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) AR20100021838 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100021838 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1