BOARD DATE: 23 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016799 BOARD VOTE: ___x______ __x_____ ___x__ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 23 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016799 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's previous decisions in Docket Numbers AR20120010189 and AR20130021176. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the Purple Heart for wounds incurred as a result of enemy action on 30 October 1969 in Vietnam, b. adding to his DD Form 214 the Purple Heart and the Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award), and c. adding to item 40 of his DA Form 20 an entry showing he was wounded in action in Vietnam on 30 October 1969. ___________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. BOARD DATE: 23 March 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150016799 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 previous requests to correct his record to show he is entitled to the Purple Heart. He also requests the Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award) be reinstated and added to his discharge document. In subsequent letters to the Board, he requests an amendment to an undated list of Soldiers who received the Purple Heart to show he was awarded the Purple Heart. 2. The applicant states, in pertinent part, that his previous requests were largely misinterpreted by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR or Board)) because he asked that his record be corrected to show he was entitled to award of the Purple Heart by correcting Army medical records and then awarding him the Purple Heart. He cites a court case (Haselwander v. McHugh) that he believes is binding or at least instructive to the Board. He – * contends that the previously submitted evidence establishes, by a preponderance of evidence, that his military records are erroneous because they omit facts which show he was treated for a wound sustained as a result of enemy action * states there were retained fragments in the wounded hand demonstrating treatment by a medical officer was required * requests award of a second Army Commendation Medal based on publication of general orders * requests, in pertinent part, that unit historical records be corrected to show award of the Purple Heart 3. The applicant, through extensive research and at great expense to him, established his date of wounding as 30 October 1969 through historical unit information filed at the National Archives and letters he wrote home. He summarizes the combat situation and events leading up to his date of wounding. He went into the field on or about 17 August 1969. It was nearly 22 days before he and his unit had enemy contact. A new lieutenant was assigned to his unit on or about 7 November 1969; however, he clearly remembers he was wounded before the new lieutenant arrived in the field. He argues his chain of command did not report his wounding up the chain either through radio communication or in staff duty log entries as was customary. As his name was not included on the roster of Soldiers wounded, his unit's historical files omitted a critical fact that would have readily shown he met the criteria for award of the Purple Heart. He cites an After Action Report entry for 30 October 1969 which states, in effect, the unit encountered sniper fire at grid coordinate CR041788. The battalion had received notice from higher headquarters warning them enemy activity would be increasing. He asserts his combat-incurred wounding involved a single sniper encounter while on patrol, though the unit reports for 30 and 31 October 1969 are missing from the National Archives to support his contention. 4. The applicant provides through the Secretary of the Army and a member of Congress the following evidence: a. submitted with second reconsideration request: rebuttal brief (23 pages); applicant’s third sworn statement, dated 25 September 2015; Robert E. M____ third sworn statement, dated 9 February 2015; Dr. Philip D. C___ third sworn statement, dated 5 February 2015; the applicant?s Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) shown as ?Amended Record? undated; and a picture of person identified as Captain Philip D. C___ (AKA Dr. Philip D. C____). (All are identified in Exhibit 31.) b. Haselwander v. McHugh court case. c. Exhibits 1 through 56 [where cited in this consideration, the applicant's current numbering system will be used]. d. Exhibit 57, sent by separate letter dated 15 December 2015. e. Exhibit 58 [Sworn statements from Jeffrey L. Z___ and Paul R___], sent by separate letter dated 29 March 2016. f. Resubmission of Exhibit 58 [added applicant?s new sworn statement, dated 29 June 2016, and email communication between the applicant and Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Esquire, counsel for Haselwander v. McHugh], sent by separate letter dated 30 June 2016. g. Exhibit 59 [Resubmission of Exhibit 43, Exhibit 58 and a declassified Senior Officer Debriefing Report…173rd Airborne Brigade for the period 9 August through 10 August 1970], sent by separate letter dated 25 July 2016. h. By letter, dated 25 July 2016, the applicant clarified his date of wounding from 31 October to 30 October 1969. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120010189 on 8 January 2013 and reconsidered in Docket Number AR20130021176 on 25 September 2014. 2. The applicant provides new argument and evidence that warrant consideration by the Board 3. On 23 July 1968 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. He completed his required training and was promoted to staff sergeant. He was assigned to duty in Vietnam as a squad leader with Company A, 3rd Battalion (Airborne), 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, from 7 August 1969 to 4 June 1970. 4. Headquarters, 173rd Airborne Brigade, issued: * General Order (GO) Number 227, dated 4 February 1970, awarding him the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service during the period August 1969 to January 1970 * GO Number 1251, dated 1 June 1970, awarding him the ARCOM; however the certificate shows award of the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious achievement during the period March to April 1970 * GO Number 1344, dated 6 June 1970, awarding him the ARCOM for meritorious service during the period August 1969 to June 1970 * GO Number 2478, dated 12 September 1970, awarding him the ARCOM for meritorious achievement during the period 12 March to 21 April 1970 5. On 22 June 1973, Headquarters, U.S. Army, Pacific (USARPAC), issued GO Number 299 amending so much of Headquarters, 173rd Airborne Brigade, GO Number 2478 as pertained to the applicant to read, in effect, ARCOM (2nd Award). 6. Review of the Vietnam casualty listing compiled by The Adjutant General's Office, Casualty Division, does not show the applicant's name listed as a casualty. His available medical record contains no evidence showing he was wounded in action and treated for his wounds by a medical officer. Item 40 (Wounds) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows no entries. 7. Review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System, an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the Awards and Decorations Branch of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, failed to reveal any orders for the Purple Heart pertaining to the applicant. 8. A review of his official military personnel record shows that in 1985 a senior commissioned officer at the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center denied him the Purple Heart. His member of Congress and another individual submitted letters on his behalf to Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA). A senior commissioned officer serving as the Chief, Military Awards Branch, stated the applicant did not meet the three criteria required for award of the Purple Heart: * conclusive evidence must be available to show that the Soldier was wounded as a direct result of enemy action * the wound must have been serious enough to require medical treatment at the time of the injury or shortly thereafter, and the treatment must be recorded in official records 9. In the original case (AR20120010189), the Board denied the applicant's request for the Purple Heart. In its reconsideration (AR20130021176) the Board awarded the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) and corrected his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) by adding authorized service ribbons, decorations, or awards, including two Bronze Star Medals. He is the recipient of the Combat Infantryman Badge. The Board denied "correction of his service medical records to show the 'source, fact, and treatment' of an injury he received in 1969" and subsequently the Purple Heart. The Board also denied award of a second Army Commendation Medal. 10. The above cases, identified herein as the applicant's Exhibit 8 (AR20120010189) and Exhibit 23 (AR20130021176) respectively and again as Exhibits 33 and 34, are attached for reference. This case will describe and consider only those pieces of evidence that are pertinent to this particular consideration. 11. The applicant's sworn statements at Exhibits 3, 10, 31, and 58, respectively, relate that he was wounded in 1969 by small arms fire to the left hand when an enemy bullet struck a rock [ricocheting and causing fragment wounds to his hand]. The wound was bandaged by the platoon medic, ?Doc M,? in the field. Bullet and rock fragments continued to work their way out of his wound for some time. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no record of this wounding in his medical or Army records, he established his date of wounding as 31 October 1969 after extensive research through unit historical files and personal letters written home from Vietnam. 12. Exhibit 4, the sworn statement of Edward K. K., the machine gunner, indicates the applicant was his platoon sergeant for most of his Vietnam tour. While on patrol they took enemy small arms fire. He yelled at the applicant to get down. Afterward he saw the applicant had wounds in his hand. The applicant's hand was treated and bandaged by the platoon medic, Robert "Doc" M. 13. Exhibit 5 is the sworn statement of Walter W. J., who identifies himself as the assistant machine gunner. He relates, "…after the medic treated and bandaged [the applicant's] hand…I distinctly remember Ed teasing [the applicant] by calling out to him and saying words like ?Didn't they teach you not to hold up your hand in a firefight?'" 14. Exhibit 6, a sworn statement from Pasquale P., Jr., relates he does not know the date and time of the wounding, but does know the applicant was wounded by incoming small arms fire. The applicant was not evacuated after his hand was bandaged by the medic. Those who could still "soldier on" despite wounds or sickness tended to do so because they were always shorthanded. 15. Robert E. M. provided sworn statements dated 3 March 2012 (Exhibit 7), 2 July 2013 (Exhibit 15) and 9 February 2015 (Exhibits 29 and 31). In summary, he identified himself as a combat medic with 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry. He was assigned to 1st Platoon, A Company from June or July through October 1969. The applicant was his platoon sergeant. He relates, "…all my treatment records were routinely sent to the [Battalion] Aid Station as required of medics. I did not keep a personal [record] or a diary.? Based on discussions at unit reunions and the fact that he has nightmares about various incidents from Vietnam, he feels he treated the applicant. He did not know of a requirement that Soldiers should be seen by a medical officer or that someone should verify that a wound was serious enough to require treatment by a medical officer [to award the Purple Heart]. He states it was his responsibility on the battlefield to treat Soldiers. At the time, the applicant?s wound did not require medical evacuation from the battlefield because it was not considered serious enough for evacuation. He received a Purple Heart for wounds received during a "rocket attack" though he does not remember the date of his injury [implying that the Board should not withhold the Purple Heart from the applicant because in previous applications the applicant could not specifically identify the date of his wounding]. 16. Exhibit 13 is a sworn statement from Tim E. B., who states the applicant was his platoon sergeant. In August 1969, he encountered his second enemy fire fight. He recalls that the applicant was wounded in the hand by incoming small arms fire which also hit the surrounding rocks. During the fire fight he believes the applicant was the target of the incoming enemy fire. He recalls the applicant sustained a fragment wound rather than a single bullet wound. He states, "I assume that, Robert 'Doc' M. treated the wound. But frankly [he] didn't pay much attention because [the applicant] was a 'cherry' [new replacement].? 17. Exhibit 14 is a sworn statement from Colonel Dale E. R. (Retired), who states that in Vietnam he was the applicant?s platoon leader. He considers the applicant the single most competent noncommissioned officer (NCO) that he encountered during his career. He recalls the applicant's wounding and his ability to continue his duties as the platoon sergeant. He states the applicant received medical treatment in the field and that his hand was protected from infection by a field dressing for some time. He acknowledges the applicant?s injury and treatment were not documented in unit records. He does not recall the exact date of the fire fight. He acknowledges the applicant was instrumental in ensuring his Soldiers were recognized for their acts of valor and service. He considers it an injustice that the applicant has not received the Purple Heart. 18. Exhibit 17 is a sworn statement from Dr. Philip D. C, a medical doctor who identifies himself as the 3rd Battalion, 503d Infantry, surgeon from January 1970 to January 1971. He relates that, to the best of his knowledge, policies and procedures remained unchanged before and after his and the applicant's tours of duty. He relates that no medical record entries were made when non-disabling and non-incapacitating wounds were treated in the field by medical personnel. The medics reported these incidents as an administrative requirement. Medical record entries were made when a Soldier was treated at the battalion aid station. He further states that in either instance a record should have been made in the applicant's medical record and that such an omission should be corrected. He also pointed out that in many instances field-treated wounds required follow-up at the battalion aid station as was the case with the applicant's wound. He offered a sample of what the Health Record entry might have looked like if he had been with 3rd Battalion, 503d Infantry, at the time the applicant was wounded. 19. Exhibit 18 is a letter from Dr. Curtis N., a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) staff physician, who reports that he finds the residual scarring on the applicant’s left hand is consistent with the applicant's description of the wound. He states, "I find that there is a small and slightly visible scarring on the edge of the ulnar aspect of his left hand extending from near the wrist to below the base of the little finger." He further states, "Recipients of the Purple Heart medal can be placed in a higher priority for medical treatment. Thus, the denial of an earned but un-awarded Purple Heart medal would result in the unrecognized priority for medical service for [the applicant]." 20. Exhibit 19 is a sworn statement of Homer D.B., Jr., who states he is a Vietnam Veteran and a former Director of the VA Pacific Islands Health Care System. In his statement he identifies the priority treatment and reduced medical costs veterans receive through the VA and other government entities if they are the recipients of the Purple Heart. 21. In Exhibit 21, a retired Army brigadier general writes in a letter to the Board that he served in Vietnam with the 173d Airborne Brigade at the same time as the applicant, but in a different unit. Given the brigade's mission and dispersion, he does not find it surprising that the wounds of Soldiers who were not medically evacuated did not actually get recorded their records. 22. The applicant provides numerous unit DA Forms 1594 (Staff Duty Journal or Duty Officer's Log), casualty reports, maps, after action reports, spot reports, dust-off reports, unclassified debriefing reports, and private letters to his family members during his period of service in Vietnam. He also submits as evidence to the Board his post-service accomplishments, to include his civilian employment history, volunteer service to the 25th Infantry Division Association and various veterans groups, and an award received for his community support to the U.S. Army. 23. The applicant provides an incomplete document allegedly from unit history reports showing a roster of unit personnel who received the Purple Heart. The applicant contends that upon award of the Purple Heart, unit records should be corrected to show he received this award. REFERENCES: 1. The Purple Heart is governed by Executive Order (EO) 11016, which states, in part: a. The Secretary of a military department shall, in the name of the President of the United States award the Purple Heart to any member of an armed force under the jurisdiction of that department who, after 5 April 1917, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with an armed force of that department, has been wounded: * in any action against an enemy of the United States * in any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged * while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party * as the result of an act of any such enemy or opposing armed force * as the result of an act of any hostile foreign force b. A wound for which award of the Purple Heart is made must have required treatment by a medical officer. c. The Secretary of the department concerned may prescribe such regulations as he considers appropriate to carry out this order. The regulations of the Secretaries of the departments with respect to award of the Purple Heart, so far as practicable, be uniform, and those of the military departments shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense. 2. Department of Defense (DOD) Manual Number 1348.33 (Manual of Military Decorations and Awards), Volume 3, currently in effect, states a wound for which award of the Purple Heart is made must have 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 includes a statement in the Service member’s medical record that the extent of the wounds were such that they would have required treatment by a medical officer if one had been available to treat them. a. The manual defines "medical officer" as: "A physician with officer rank. An officer of the Medical Corps of the Army, an officer of the Medical Corps of the Navy, or an officer in the Air Force designated as a medical officer in accordance with section 101 [of Title 10, United States Code]." b. The manual defines "medical professional" as: "A civilian physician or a physician extender. Physician extenders include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other medical professionals qualified to provide independent treatment (e.g., independent duty corpsman and special forces medic). Basic corpsmen and medics are not physician extenders." 3. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards) as then in effect, stated in paragraph 1b, "A wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer and records of medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action as described above must have been made a matter of official record." 4. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against an 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. In addition, it states only one decoration will be awarded to an individual or unit for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service. The Purple Heart is an individual award which requires the publication of orders. 5. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), then in effect, stated a brief description of wounds or injuries (including injury from gas) requiring medical treatment received through hostile or enemy action, including those requiring hospitalization, would be entered in item 40 of the DA Form 20. This regulation further stated that the date the wound or injury occurred would also be placed in item 40. 6. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552 states: a. The Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice. Except when procured by fraud, a correction under this section is final and conclusive on all officers of the United States. b. In this section, the term "military record" means a document or other record that pertains to (1) an individual member or former member of the armed forces, or (2) at the discretion of the Secretary of the military department concerned, any other military matter affecting a member or former member of the armed forces, an employee or former employee of that military department, or a dependent or current or former spouse of any such person. 7. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case of Haselwander v. McHugh pertains to: a. A veteran of the U.S. Army who served during the Vietnam War and was honorably discharged in 1974. During his tour of duty in Vietnam, he claimed he was wounded and knocked unconscious when an enemy rocket exploded near his sleeping quarters. He was picked up by medical personnel and treated for shrapnel wounds. He was then called back to duty as soon as he had been bandaged, so those who attended to his wounds never had a chance to fill out any medical paperwork for him. As a result, his Army records do not show that he was wounded in hostile action. b. In March 2007, he filed an application with the ABCMR to correct his military records so that he could receive the Purple Heart. In his initial application to the Board, he provided references who could corroborate his story, along with photographs taken at the time when he was wounded showing him with bandages on his face and shoulder and wearing a dispensary-issued scrub top. The Board rejected the application, stating that he had failed to show that he had been "treated for a wound that was sustained as the result of enemy action." c. He then filed a petition for reconsideration that included a letter from another veteran who was also wounded and treated at the same time and official reports from his brigade and platoon units that detailed the events on the day he was wounded. The Board denied his application for reconsideration. d. He sought review in the District Court. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted the Secretary of the Army motion and denied his motion. He then appealed and pointed out that the undisputed evidence in the record showed that he was injured in an enemy attack and that he was treated for his wounds by members of the Army medical staff. On the basis of this evidence, he claimed his medical records should be corrected and he should be awarded the Purple Heart. The Secretary of the Army response rested on two contentions: first, that the veteran waived his request for correction of his medical records because he "did not identify medical records to be changed, how those documents should be changed, nor indicate what treatment the documents should say he received or what medical officer treated him," and second, the Secretary of the Army argued that the Board’s decision that he is not entitled to the Purple Heart should be upheld because he has no medical records of his injury and treatment. e. The Court of Appeals stated that: "The Secretary’s waiver argument is a red herring. This claim was never raised with the District Court, so it has been forfeited. Furthermore, the Board’s decision rejecting the petition for reconsideration did not rest on any finding that [the Veteran] had asked for the wrong record to be corrected or that he failed to raise a request for correction to his medical records. In sum, the Secretary’s waiver argument is groundless." f. The Court of Appeals found that, "The Board’s decision defies reason and is devoid of any evidentiary support. We therefore vacate the decision because it is arbitrary and capricious. The Board held that the photographs submitted by [the Veteran], without more, were insufficient to support his claim. [The Veteran's] claim, however, does not rest exclusively on photographs. Indeed, the Board specifically found that '[t]he letters of support submitted with [the Veteran's] request for reconsideration clearly state that the applicant was wounded in action.' And the Board did not otherwise discredit any of the evidence submitted by [the Veteran]. Thus, it is apparent that the sole basis for the Board’s rejection of [the Veteran's] claim is its finding that '[t]here is no available medical record to corroborate the photographs.'" g. The Court of Appeals concluded that "The Board misapprehends its powers and duties as a record correction body when it denies an application because the applicant’s records are incomplete. The void in [the Veteran's] medical records is the very error that he seeks to have corrected so that he can secure the Purple Heart to which he is entitled. The Board’s reasoning in this case is utterly illogical, and patently unfair; therefore, the Board’s judgment against [the Veteran] is 'unworthy of any deference.' [The Veteran's] requests for a correction of his military record and an award of the Purple Heart are supported by uncontested, creditable evidence. We therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court and vacate the decision of the Board. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to remand the case to the ABCMR for a prompt disposition of this matter consistent with this opinion." DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that Army personnel erred when his wound and its subsequent field treatment by a unit medical specialist were not entered into his military record or into unit records in October 1969, when he alleges he was wounded by enemy small arms fire that ricocheted off a rock. He asserts he received fragment wounds to his left hand on 30 October 1969. As there were no entries made in his medical record or annotations made in unit reports, he was denied the Purple Heart. 2. The D.C. Circuit’s opinion in the Haselwander case focused on the ABCMR’s reluctance to amend Mr. Haselwander’s military records despite overwhelming evidence that he received medical treatment for an injury resulting from enemy fire. The ABCMR seemingly felt it was improper to construe the existence of the requisite medical record when no such record, in any form, had ever actually existed. The D.C. Circuit admonished the ABCMR that its reluctance in this regard was misplaced and that: [t]he [ABCMR] misapprehends its powers and duties as a record correction body when it denies an application because the applicant’s records are incomplete. The void in [the Veteran's] medical records is the very error that he seeks to have corrected so that he can secure the Purple Heart to which he is entitled. (Haselwander decision, p. 5.) Thus, the Haselwander decision instructs corrections boards to assume the existence of "records of medical treatment" within a Soldier's "official records" when the evidence is clear that the Soldier in fact was injured in combat and received medical treatment. Such an assumption is warranted to avoid the injustice of denying a Purple Heart to a Soldier clearly entitled to the award. In the Haselwander case, the Board recommended, in addition to awarding the Purple Heart, adding an entry in item 40 of the DA Form 20 in response to Haselwander's request to create a medical record showing he received a wound as a result of hostile action that required medical treatment. 3. Army regulations, partly derived from DOD Manual Number 1348.33, provide that each approved award of the Purple Heart must exhibit all of the following factors: wound, injury or death must have been the result of enemy or hostile act, international terrorist attack, or friendly fire; the wound or injury must have required treatment by medical officials; and the records of medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record. 4. The numerous sworn statements by members of the applicant's platoon appear to show the applicant and his unit were engaged with the enemy on or about 30 October 1969. The applicant also provided evidence from the National Archives supporting his contention that he and his unit engaged the enemy in October and November 1969. It is noted the applicant was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge while serving in Vietnam. Clearly, the applicant and his unit were engaged with the enemy during this period. 5. A review of the evidence from the National Archives shows no records supporting the applicant's contention he received a wound from enemy fire or, if he did, that it required medical treatment, nor does his own official record contain such evidence. 6. The applicant’s case is similar to Haselwander in that he petitioned members of his unit to provide sworn statements, albeit years after the incident, attesting to his wounding by enemy fire and subsequent treatment by a field medic. All witnesses attest to the incoming enemy fire, though none can pinpoint the exact date. All witnesses attest to the applicant’s claim that an enemy bullet ricocheted off a rock resulting in the applicant receiving (rock) fragments to his hand. The medic who recalls treating the applicant’s hand stated the applicant remained in the field and did not require further medical evacuation to a battalion aid station. He believes if the applicant had been medically evacuated for continued treatment, the appropriate entry would have been made in the applicant's medical records and the applicant would have been awarded the Purple Heart. 7. The field medic’s statement is supported by a former Army battalion surgeon who indicates follow-up treatment by a medical officer could have been required. Because he didn't receive follow-up treatment, the battalion surgeon or other medical staff did not make an entry into the applicant’s treatment records. Now, 40 years later the former Army medical officer offers a proposed correction to the applicant’s health record showing how he would have entered the information had he treated the applicant. A VA physician attests to the fact the applicant has residual scarring on his left hand. 8. The Board must determine if a preponderance of the evidence shows that the criteria for award of the Purple Heart were met in the incident that occurred on or about 30 October 1969. 9. The previous Board noted that general orders awarding the applicant either a second Army Commendation Medal or second Bronze Star Medal were contradictory. Based on the fact that the applicant had been presented with the certificate and citation for a second Bronze Star Medal, the Board determined that the applicant's record should be corrected to show a second Bronze Star Medal. The Board also corrected his record to show one Army Commendation Medal. There are two separate Army Commendation Medal orders in his records (one for achievement and one for service). These records support correction of his DD Form 214 to show the Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award). 10. Should the Board favorably consider the applicant's request for the Purple Heart, the documents generated as a result would preclude any need to correct or modify unit historical records that are maintained by the National Archives. A copy of this Record of Proceedings will be filed in the applicant's individual official military personnel file archived at the National Personnel Records Center, as will any documents produced as a result of a favorable recommendation. Favorable consideration of the request for the Purple Heart in this case would also create a basis for adding an entry in item 40 of the applicant's DA Form 20. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016799 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016799 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2