IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 31 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160018568 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :x :x :x DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 May 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160018568 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 contends he earned the Purple Heart based on an eye injury sustained on 17 September 2009 in Kabul, Afghanistan from a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (IED). b. A line of duty investigation initiated by his unit confirmed both the source and nature of his injury. An examination report dated 3 November 2009 by the only ophthalmologist in Afghanistan reveals diagnosis of "corneal degeneration recurrent erosion" and that the injury was "Battle Related; Category: Ophthalmologic Cause: Battle Injury/Illness." c. Subsequent ocular examination records from both 1 December 2011 and 18 July 2015 note the continued resulting "damage" and "scar" to his left eye. d. His hearing loss does not support the award of the Purple Heart; however, he only referenced his hearing loss to document the full extent of injuries from the explosion. Through no fault of his own, it took 6 years to get his packet to HRC for review. e. HRC initially deemed his injury did not qualify for Purple Heart under current regulation and secondly denied his request indicating no medical documentation exists on 17 September 2009, the date of his injury, until 3 November 2009. However, he received medical treatment by unit Special Forces medical personnel until routes were cleared several weeks later, allowing him to see the only ophthalmologist in Afghanistan. 3. The applicant provides * DD Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) * 76th Operational Response Command, Memorandum dated 11 March 2013 * Active Duty (AD) Order, dated 30 July 2009 * DD Form 1610 (Request and Authorization for Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel of DOD Personnel), dated 21 July 2009 * Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) Order, dated 23 March 2009 * DA Form 4037-E (Officer Record Brief (ORB)), dated 17 June 2014 * Self-Authored Statement dated 29 January 2015 * Shadow Warriors, Vehicle-Borne IED Information Print-out * CBS News Webpage Article * 10 pages of Medical Record document extracts * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued 15 December 2009 * HRC Letters, dated 28 September and 16 November 2015 * 4 pages of Electronic mail correspondence * Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) Printout, dated 2 December 2016 * Department of the Army (DA) Legal Command, Reassignment Order , dated 7 September 2015 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. After having 13 years, 5 months, and 9 days prior Reserve Component service and 8 years and 10 days prior AD service, the applicant was ordered to AD in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) as a member of the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 1 June 2009. He held the rank of lieutenant colonel (LTC/O-5). 2. On 15 August 2009, the applicant deployed to Afghanistan. 3. A Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) dated 3 November 2009, shows: a. The applicant received medical treatment on 3 November 2009, for a foreign body in his left eye. He stated debris from an adjacent building impacted his left eye while he was standing approximately 250 meters from detonated vehicle-borne IED on 17 September 2009. The applicant sought care the same day, artificial tears, still with intermittent foreign body sensation various times during the day. d. The physical findings show: extraocular movements were normal; pupils were normal; external eye showed no abnormalities of the eyelids; conjunctiva exhibited no abnormalities; assessment of right eye cornea – clear; assessment of left eye cornea - 1 millimeter linear area of loose, boggy epithelium at 9:00 o'clock position - no limbal injection; anterior chamber exhibited no abnormalities; right eye visual assessment - distance right acuity with current Rx: 20/20; and left eye visual assessment - distance left acuity with current Rx: 20/25. e. The applicant was diagnosed with "Corneal degeneration recurrent erosion" the examining physician commented, "No existing foreign body-everted eyelids. Education/Reassurance. Symptoms c/w [consistent with] recurrent corneal erosion OS [left eye]." The applicant was released without limitations. f. This medical form shows the applicant's injury was classified as "Battle Related Category Ophthalmologic, Cause Battle Injury/Illness." 3. On 15 December 2009, the applicant was honorably released from active duty by reason of "completion of his required active service" and transferred to his USAR unit. The DD Form 214 issued him shows he completed 6 months and 15 days active duty service for the period it covered. 4. On 24 June 2011, Special Operations Command Central, Flight Medical Clinic, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida personnel completed a DD Form 2173, which states: a. On 17 September 2009, the applicant was standing outside near a building wall approximately 100 meters away from an entry control point on the New Kabul Compound at the time a vehicle-borne IED struck a convoy. The applicant received an eye injury and unequal hearing loss. b. The medical opinion provided the applicant was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, was mentally sound, the injury was not likely to result in a claim against the government for future medical care, and the applicant incurred the injury in the line of duty. 5. Deputy Commander, 76th Operational Response Command, Salt Lake City, Utah, Memorandum, dated 11 March 2003, shows the line of duty determination for the applicant's eye injury occurred during active duty and was approved. 6. On 28 September 2015, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, HRC responded to the applicant's request for award of the Purple Heart. This official provided: a. A thorough review of the information provided, does not meet the statutory guidance in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards), paragraph 2-8h (14) and (14). b. The medical documentation dated 9 November 2009; referencing exposure to a vehicle-borne IED indicates a medical professional saw the applicant for a foreign body in his left eye after the incident. c. His medical records concluded there was no foreign body at the time of exam and the applicant was released without limitations. d. Additionally, hearing loss or tinnitus are not criteria for award of the Purple Heart. 7. On 16 November 2015, the Chief, Soldiers Programs and Services Branch, HRC responded to the applicant's second request for award of the Purple Heart. This official provided the exact same information as in his initial response to the applicant's request for the Purple Heart and added: a. There is no medical documentation dated on or near the 17 September 2009 incident, and b. The applicant was advised not to wear contacts. 8. The applicant currently serves in the USAR with the 13th Legal Operations Detachment, Upper, Marlboro, Maryland. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound or injury sustained as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound or injury was the result of hostile action, the wound or injury must have required treatment by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record a. A wound is defined as any injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent. A physical lesion is not required. However, the wound for which the award is made must have needed treatment, not merely examination by a medical officer or physician. Additionally, treatment of the wound will be documented in the Service member's medical or health record. b. An injury or wound caused by an enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action would clearly justify the award of the Purple Heart. c. Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not justify award of the Purple Heart would include abrasions and lacerations (unless of a severity to be incapacitating) and bruises (unless caused by direct impact of the enemy weapon and severe enough to require treatment by a medical officer). DISCUSSION: 1. Award of the Purple Heart requires that the preponderance of the evidence show a wound was the direct result of hostile action, the wound received treatment, and that medical made the treatment a matter of official record. 2. The applicant states, on 17 September 200, he sustained an eye injury following a vehicle-borne IED detonation and received medical treatment by unit medical personnel. 3. His record does not contain and he did not provide any documents to show this immediate medical treatment was made a matter of official record or that his unit commander or any other award authority obtained this medical evidence to initiate his award for the Purple Heart based on an eye injury/wounding sustained on 17 September 2009. 3. The medical evidence of record includes a Standard Form 600, dated 3 November 2009, which states debris from an adjacent building impacted the applicant's left eye while he was standing approximately 250 meters from a detonated vehicle-borne IED on 17 September 2009. Medical evidence dated 3 November 2009, shows that on examination, there was no existing foreign body in the applicant's left eye and he was released without limitations. 4. Abrasions (unless incapacitating) and bruises (unless caused by direct impact of an enemy weapon and severe enough to require treatment by a medical officer) do not justify the award of the Purple Heart. 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. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160018568 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160018568 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2