IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004075 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: a. He wants the decision of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) reversed and to be awarded the Purple Heart on the grounds that "new" rules were established in 2009. He believes the "new" rules for award of the Purple Heart should be honored. b. He has twice tried to satisfy the requirements for the Purple Heart; once in 2009 and once in 2011. In 2014, he sought the help of his congressman since his congressman was successful in getting the Purple Heart awarded to another Soldier who served in World War II. He does not believe that an injustice occurred in his initial attempts because a favorable decision was not reached. In all the letters he received from the Awards Branch at HRC, they were simply telling him what he needed to build his award case file. His file appeared to lack eyewitness statements, hearing tests before and after [the blast], operational reports, photographs, and his proximity to the blast. c. With the letter from Brigadier General (BG) AFI as new evidence to support his Purple Heart request, all the materials the past letters from HRC asked for were now provided, especially the eyewitness statement. He thought he finally would be able to satisfy all the HRC requirements deemed necessary. In a letter, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, HRC, stated BG AFI’s letter merely gave a history report on his (the applicant’s) previous requests for the Purple Heart. That is the injustice. He provided an eyewitness statement to support his award file and it was not honored by HRC. His request for the Purple Heart was again returned due to insufficient evidence. d. He can’t imagine a letter from an officer of BG AFI’s stature, which provided the needed eyewitness information, could in any way be viewed as a threat to the integrity of the Purple Heart. He wonders if the letter was really read by HRC personnel to see if all the needed information was there or if the Chief’s mind was already made up. He believes BG AFI letter meets the requirement for an eyewitness statement to support award of the Purple Heart. 3. The applicant provides: * his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) * Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) * SF 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) * three SF 513 (Consultation Sheet) * DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record) * Audiometric Evaluation Sheet, dated 23 March 1973 * four letters * a self-authored letter to the National Personnel Records Center, dated 5 February 2014 * two newspaper articles, one undated and one dated 17 February 2014, each featuring a Soldier that was awarded a Purple Heart * an email, dated 19 May 2014 * three pages of photographs, identified as showing the after effects of an enemy blast on a room he was occupying in Vietnam on an unknown date CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant’s records show he was serving as a captain (CPT) in the Army Nation Guard (ARNG). He provides an SF 88, dated 9 October 1967, wherein it shows he underwent a medical examination on that date for the purpose of entry onto active duty. His PULHES was 1-1-1-1-1-1 and he was found qualified for active duty service. 2. He was ordered to active duty as a member of the ARNG and he entered active duty on 7 January 1968. He held area of concentrations (AOC)/military occupational specialties (MOS) 2163 (Air Operations Officer) and 2120 (Administrative Officer). He served in Vietnam from 13 January 1968 to 8 January 1969. 3. The applicant provides: a. SF 600 and SF 513, each dated 24 April 1970, wherein it shows he was seen at the dispensary, Fort Hood, TX, on that date. The treating physician noted the applicant had a history of loss of hearing for a few days while in Vietnam (emphasis added). He was given a consult for the Ears, Nose, and Throat (ENT) clinic and the physician noted a study showed the applicant had a loss of hearing to high frequency noises and the consult was for an evaluation for a permanent profile for no exposure to loud noises. b. DA Form 3349, dated 28 April 1970, wherein it shows he was issued a permanent profile of 3 in the H (Hearing) category of the PUHLES by the ENT Clinic, Fort Hood. The form noted he had sensorineural hearing loss, was fit for duty, and had assignment limitations with ear defenders. 4. He served in Vietnam from 29 September 1970 to 27 September 1971. 5. The applicant provides an: a. SF 513, dated 23 March 1973, wherein it shows he was seen at the ENT Clinic on that date; the location of the clinic is not known. The audiologist noted he had profound bilateral higher frequency hearing loss, a normal ear exam, and he must practice hearing conservation and wear protective devices. A profile of 3 in the H category of the PULHES was recommended. b. SF 513, dated 20 October 1975, wherein it shows he was seen at the ENT clinic, Fort Jackson, SC, on that date and diagnosed with a bilateral hearing loss (nerve type), predominately in the high-pitched tones. He was found fit for separation with an H-3 profile. 6. He was honorably released from active duty on 15 November 1975 in the rank of CPT and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve. He competed 7 years, 10 months, and 9 days of creditable active service during this period of service. 7. A review of the Adjutant General's Office, Casualty Division's Vietnam casualty listing failed to show he was a casualty. There is no medical evidence in his available record that shows he was wounded as a result of hostile action while in an active duty status. 8. The applicant provides: a. A letter to a senator, undated, and a letter to himself, dated 20 September 2011, from HRC, wherein it stated, in part, the applicant’s request for a Purple Heart for hearing loss must include records of audiology testing prior to and after the incident, evaluations by an ENT specialist, and eyewitness statements. In lieu of treatment records, witness statements or operational records indicating the enemy rocket attack and affected personnel could be used to establish his proximately to the blast. b. A letter to HRC, dated 27 August 2014, from BG AFI (Retired), wherein it stated, in part: (1) He is an eyewitness to support the applicant’s request for the Purple Heart. During a massive attack on Saigon in 1968, he was the Commanding General, U.S. Army Headquarters Area Command (USAHAC), Saigon. The applicant commanded the Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment (HHD), USAHAC, and he continually roamed the dangerous streets checking on his troops. In the early morning darkness a 122mm rocket landed adjacent to his headquarters which received heavy debris. The 122mm rockets were powerful and left huge craters. In this case, something heavy impacted the roof over two small rooms that the applicant and his executive officer (XO) occupied. (2) The applicant and his XO were shaken and one seemed seriously hurt; both were immediately evacuated to the 3rd Surgical Field Hospital and the XO was medically evacuated to Japan. There was chaos in the overburdened Army hospital. Consequently, the applicant who had lost his hearing apparently required no treatment and was told his hearing would return in time. "Paperwork" was not critical at the time and there is apparently no record of his visit to the hospital; he was returned to duty and his unit. (3) He (BG AFI) toured the wreckage while the applicant was at the hospital and the applicant reported to him when he got back. He appeared completely deaf and they conversed by writing notes and questions. He knows that it was found as a minimum that he had a ruptured ear drum. As a two-time recipient, he understands that the Purple Heart is awarded for wounds as a result of enemy fire and he strongly recommends the applicant be awarded the Purple Heart. He concludes by stating he is aware that today’s Iraqi veterans received the Purple Heart without hesitation for wounds similar to the applicant’s. c. A letter to BG AFI, dated 23 September 2014, from HRC, wherein it stated, in part: (1) The Awards and Decorations Branch previously requested a formal review of the applicant’s medical record by the Office of the Surgeon General. In 2011, that office concluded his hearing loss may be attributed to service-connected noise exposure; however, they could find no evidence his injury was the direct result of enemy action. (2) In order to process the applicant’s request, HRC required a one-page narrative of the incident, at least two notarized eyewitness statements, military medical documentation immediately after the event describing treatment by a medical officer of injuries received as a direct result of enemy action, and audiology tests and evaluations by an ENT specialist conducted before and after the incident(s) in question. 9. The Department of Defense Instruction 1348.33, Volume 3, subject: Manual of Military Decorations and Awards: DoD Wide Performance and Valor Award; Foreign Award, Military Awards to Foreign Personnel and U.S. Public Health Services Officers; and Miscellaneous Information states the Purple Heart is governed by Executive Order 11016 which authorizes the Secretary of a Military Department to award the Purple Heart to any member of the armed force under the jurisdiction of that department. The wound for which the award is made must have been of such severity that it required treatment, not merely examination, by a medical officer. Additionally, treatment of the wound shall be documented in the Service member’s medical and/or health record. Award of the Purple Heart may be made for wounds treated by a medical professional other than a medical officer provided a medical officer include a statement in the Service member’s medical records that the extend of the wounds were such that they would have required treatment by a medical officer if one had been available to treat them. 10. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against and enemy or 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 medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. a. Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows: injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap; injury caused by enemy released chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire; and/or concussion injuries caused as a result of enemy generated explosions. b. Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows: frostbite, trench foot, heat stroke, food poisoning not caused by enemy agents, battle fatigue, hearing loss and tinnitus, disease not directly caused by enemy agents, and soft tissue injuries. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Purple Heart 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. When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is if an injury was incurred and the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. 2. The criteria for an award of the Purple Heart requires the submission of substantiating evidence to verify that the injury/wound was the result of hostile action, the injury/wound must have required treatment by medical personnel, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. 3. The applicant provides medical records that shows he received a permanent profile of 3 in April 1970 for a hearing loss to high-frequency noises that appears to have started after his first tour of service in Vietnam (January 1968 to January 1969). The evidence of record does not show and he has not provided any evidence that shows he was injured as the result of enemy action that his injuries required medical treatment, and the treatment was documented. 4. Notwithstanding the applicant’s sincerity and the eyewitness statement by BG AFI, while the applicant may have had a temporary loss of hearing after an enemy blast while in Vietnam, the loss of hearing itself does not meet the criteria for award of the Purple Heart. 5. Nevertheless, the applicant and all others concerned should know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation. The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms. 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 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) AR20150004075 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004075 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1