BOARD DATE: 12 April 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110020685 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 award of the Purple Heart. 2. The applicant states the wounds he received in combat on 25 March 1968 were not submitted for the Purple Heart. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * two letters of support from his Representatives in Congress * four letters of support from fellow Soldiers * a personal description of his wound CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's service medical and dental records are believed to be on permanent loan to the Department of Veterans Affairs and are not available for review. 3. The applicant, a career Regular Army Soldier, served on continuous active duty from 29 October 1965 through 31 December 1992. 4. During his career, he served in Vietnam from 9 October 1967 through 4 October 1968 and from 6 September 1969 through 1 October 1970. 5. The applicant describes the incident wherein he was wounded as follows: On 25 March 1968, his long-range patrol came under fire with the point man being killed. During the firefight he threw himself to the side to get cover and was struck in his right ankle with punji stakes. It was not until that night when he took off his boot that he received treatment from the company medic in the form of cleaning the wound with hydrogen peroxide and wrapping it. 6. The letters from the three service members attest to their personal knowledge of the circumstances of the injury to the applicant's right ankle. One was from his (then) platoon commander, one from the patrol leader, and the third from the team medic D____ A____. All three state they personally saw the applicant had sustained a wound to his right ankle following a firefight on 23 March 1968. This wound was initially treated by another medic with follow-up treatment being rendered by the team medic, D____ A____. Both the platoon commander and the team medic state they did not submit documentation on the wound to higher authorities. They state they did not do so due to a shortage of personnel and pressing mission requirements. 7. A review of the Vietnam casualty list located the name of the point man referenced in this case and confirms that he was killed in action on 25 March 1968; however, it failed to locate any reference to the applicant. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), paragraph 2-8, provides that the Purple Heart is awarded to an individual who is wounded in action against an enemy of the United States, the armed force of a foreign country which is or has been engaged, while serving with a friendly foreign forces against an opposing force even though the United States is not engaged, as the result of any act of such enemy or opposing force or as a result an act of any hostile foreign force. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required medical treatment, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. While the company medic states he treated the applicant for a wound to his ankle, he also states he did not document this treatment and did not send the applicant to the battalion aid station for treatment. 2. The statements of individuals are normally inadequate as the sole basis for an award of the Purple Heart because they do not fulfill the regulatory requirement that there must be a record of medical treatment. However, they are normally accepted as substantiation of the combat or the enemy origin of a wound for which there is a record of treatment. 3. The available evidence is insufficient to award the applicant the Purple Heart. 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _________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) AR20110020685 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110020685 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1