BOARD DATE: 30 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190011145 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his record to show: * he was awarded the Purple Heart * in his official records he was wounded by hostile fire * a personal hearing before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Statement of the case * National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) letter, dated 27 February 2015 * U.S. Army Human Resource Command (HRC) letters, dated 19 November 2015, 3 December 2018, and 4 January 2019 * Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Docket Number AR20180011093 letter, dated 1 December 2018 * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 4 October 1970 * History of the 173rd Airborne Brigade * DA Form 1594 (Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officers Log) * Area maps * Patient admission forms and allied documents * U.S Court of Appeals Case Mr. K- H- v. Secretary of the Army, dated 19 December 2014 * ABCMR Docket Numbers AR20150003755, dated 5 May 2015, AR20150016799, dated 23 March 2017, AR20160002446, dated 5 April 2018 * Letter authored by Mr. K- K-, dated 24 April 2019 * Dr. A- E- reply to Mr. K- K-, dated 14 May 2019 * Mr. K- K- reply to Dr. A- E-, dated 15 May 2019 * Dr. A- E- reply to Mr. K- K-, dated 15 May 2019 * Mr. K- K- reply to Dr. A- E-, dated 15 May 2019 * Applicant email to Dr. A- E-, dated 19 May 2019 * Dr. A- E- reply to the applicant, dated 21 May 2019 * Dr. A- E- statement * Applicant sworn statement * Mr. L- M- statement, dated 22 July 2014 * Mr. W- P- sworn statement * Mr. M- T- sworn statement * General Orders (GO) Number 167, dated 3 August 1970 * Dr. P- C- sworn statement * Mr. E- MC- sworn statement * Mr. K- K- sworn statement * Ms. K- Mc- letter * Mr. R- M- sworn statement FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. His erroneous Army records omit mention of the fact that he was wounded by hostile fire. Thus, he never received the Purple Heart. He was drafted, trained, and was deployed to Vietnam to fight as a combat Infantryman. He did his duty, but the Army has failed to award him the Purple Heart he earned. b. In 1969 - 1970, he served as a paratrooper in the Vietnam War. He was a sergeant (SGT)/E-5 in A Company, 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade. The specific records that should be corrected are his DD Form 214; his medical records; and his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), item 40 (Wounds); and any other records that erroneously omit the fact that he was and is entitled to an award of the Purple Heart. c. He earned this award because on 2 August 1970, he was wounded by hostile enemy action. His wound required medical treatment by a medical officer, but there was no medical officer in the field at the time he was wounded. He was treated by a field medic and was not initially evacuated. His wound became badly infected. Later, he was evacuated and admitted to a hospital, where his wound was later treated in the hospital by a medical officer. The fact of his medical treatment is recorded in his official Army medical records. 2. A review of the applicant’s official records show the following: a. On 3 March 1969, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States and served in Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). b. DA Form 20 shows the following in: (1) Item 31 (Foreign Service) the applicant served in Vietnam from on or about 13 September 1969 to on or about 4 September 1970. (2) Item 38 (Record of Assignments) he was assigned to A Company, 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade. (3) Item 40; is void of entries indicating that he was wounded as a result of enemy action. Additionally, his record is void of general orders authorizing or awarding him the PH. Furthermore, his name is not contained on the Vietnam casualty roster. c. On 4 October 1970, the applicant was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Control Group (Annual Training). His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 7 months, and 2 days of net active service. Item 22c (Foreign Service) shows U.S. Army Pacific, 1 year and 21 days. He was awarded or authorized: * National Defense Service Medal * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) * Combat Infantryman Badge * Parachutist Badge * Vietnam Service Medal * Air Medal * Vietnam Campaign Medal * Bronze Star Medal d. A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer Assisted Retrieval System maintained by the Military Awards Branch of HRC, which is an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973, failed to reveal orders awarding him the Purple Heart for his period of service in Vietnam. e. On 19 November 2015, HRC, by letter informed the applicant: (1) That based upon a review of the documentation he provided and his official records, they were unable to verify his entitlement to the Purple Heart. The daily staff journal, dated 2 August 1970, indicated "2-U.S. Wounded in Action" in item number 56. General Order Number 167 awarded the Purple Heart to Specialist D- E-. M- and SGT M- T- for injuries received on 2 August 1970. (2) The witness statement provided by Mr. L- M- (former A Company medic) states that he did see a minor scrape on his neck and likely a spider bite on his left eye. Additionally, the remaining statements provided do not state that he was injured as a direct result of enemy action. (3) After reviewing the Standard Form 513 (Clinical Record) from the Battalion Surgeon dated 15 August 1970, they note that he was diagnosed by Captain P- D-. C- with an abscess to his left upper eyelid. This record indicates he was referred to the 67th Evacuation Hospital for treatment and that his injuries were not a result of hostile enemy action; therefore, he is not entitled to the Purple Heart. 3. The applicant provides: a. Statement of the case that states in pertinent part: (1) His case has been submitted to the NPRC once, to the HRC two times, and to the Board once before now. In the fall of 2014, on his behalf Senator R- D- sent an inquiry to the NPRC inquiring about his Purple Heart. By a letter dated 27 February 2015 that was sent to Senator R- D-'s office, the NPRC stated that "No record has been found that the veteran has been given treatment for wounds or injuries received in action." In the absence of such documentation, the NPRC concluded that "the Purple Heart may not be authorized." (2) By a letter dated 20 July 2015, he asked HRC to award him the Purple Heart. By a letter dated 19 November 2015, HRC denied his request. HRC stated that "we are still unable to verify your entitlement to a Purple Heart. We require official documentation reflecting that your injuries were a direct result of enemy action." HRC referred to the statement by the medic, and concluded that "the remaining statements provided do not state that you were injured as a direct result of enemy action." HRC also stated the records prepared by the Battalion Surgeon reflect that his injuries were not a result of hostile enemy action. (3) By a letter dated 2 August 2018, he filed with the Board his first application for correction of his military records so he could receive his Purple Heart. The Board was unaware that he had already filed prior requests with the NPRC and HRC that had been denied by those agencies. On 1 December 2018, the Board administratively closed his case "without action and without prejudice'' on the grounds that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before HRC. The Board referred his case to HRC. On 4 January 2019, HRC again denied his request for a Purple Heart. HRC stated that "we remain unable to authorize the award of the Purple Heart, as we have previously denied your request." (4) In its numerous prior decisions regarding requests to correct military records to show entitlement to a Purple Heart, the Board has repeatedly stated the authority and requirements for the award of this medal. For example, in the two decisions in the case included, the Board cited Executive Order 11016; Department of Defense Manual Number 1348.33 (Manual of Military Decorations and Awards), Volume 3; Army Regulation (AR) 672-5-1 (Military Awards); AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards); and AR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management). He does not know which of these orders, rules and regulations were in effect at the time he was wounded and treated. By referring to these authorities cited by the Board in the attached exhibits, he does waive any arguments or challenges that he may have regarding the inapplicability of irrelevant or untimely orders, rules, or regulations. Considering these orders, rules and regulations together and summarizing their provisions, the requirements for the award of a Purple Heart are essentially as follows. First, the Soldier must have been wounded while serving with an Armed Force in any action against an enemy of the U.S., or in any action with an opposing Armed Force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the U.S. are or have been engaged. Second, the wound must have been sustained while in action against an enemy or as a result of hostile action. Third, the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, i.e., a physician with officer's rank. Fourth, an award of the medal may be made in cases where the wound is treated by a medical professional other than a medical officer provided a medical officer includes a statement in the Soldiers medical record that the extent of the wound was such that it would have required treatment by a medical officer if one had been available to treat the wound. Fifth, treatment of the wound must be documented in the Soldiers medical and/or health records. (5) The factual and evidentiary basis for his application is stated below. These facts are confirmed by his own sworn statement, as well as eight other supporting statements and eight exhibits he has submitted with this application. In 1969, he was drafted into the U.S. Army. He served in the U.S. Army from 3 March 1969 to 4 October 1970. His MOS was 11B. He was deployed to Vietnam and he served in the Vietnam War from 13 September 1969 until 3 October 1970. His DD Form 214 lists the details of his Army service, but it is incorrect because it is incomplete. The DD Form 214 fails to list the Purple Heart as one of the awards that he earned. Thus, that document is incorrect and it must be corrected. Similarly, his DA Form 20, item 40 must also be corrected because it omits the fact that he was wounded. (6) On 2 August 1970, he was wounded by hostile enemy action. While on patrol in their assigned area of operation, their company found an enemy base camp. The camp was unoccupied, but there were signs of recent enemy habitation and activity. At about 1115 hours while in the camp, they were fired upon by enemy soldiers. This skirmish was recorded in the official records of their Battalion. The exact location of this event was at map coordinates BR846744, as shown on the attached map. Ex. 3. Two other Soldiers and he were wounded by enemy small arms fire. The two other Soldiers were wounded more seriously than he was. One wounded Soldier was Mr. D- E-. M-, the company medic. The other Soldier was Mr. M- T-, a SGT who was the company communications SGT. After the shooting stopped, both men were treated by another medic and were immediately evacuated by helicopter out of the field and back to base camp. He was informed that both men received Purple Hearts. In his attached supporting statement, Mr. M- T- confirms these facts and also confirms his receipt of the Purple Heart. (7) Regarding his own wound, he was standing next to a tree when it was riddled by a swarm of enemy bullets. He suffered a small wound to his neck. He dropped to the ground, taking cover behind a dirt area befouled with toxic human waste because it was a latrine area used by the enemy to deposit their defecation and urine. An enemy bullet narrowly missed his face, but sprayed foul debris into his left eye and eyelid. This required medical treatment, and he was initially treated by the medic, Mr. L- M-. There was no medical officer (doctor) in the field with them at the time. Mr. L- M- examined his neck wound, and declared it to be minor because the blood had already dried. With regard to the debris shot into his eye, he recommended that he flush his eye with water. (8) After a few days, around 5 August, there was a red, swollen and tender bump about one quarter inch in diameter in the middle of his left eyebrow. Mr. L- M- examined him closely for the second time. He told him that he did not know what the cause of the injury was, but he said that it could be a spider bite. He also stated that he would keep an eye on it to determine what it was for certain. (9) The next day, 6 August, four days after he was wounded, the infection had moved to the outside corner of his left eye. He asked Mr. L- M- if a spider bite moves, and he answered, "No." As he testifies in his sworn statement, the wound "had obviously moved and had become more infected." This confirms that his earlier diagnosis of a spider bite was obviously incorrect. There was a swollen bump at the corner of his left eyelid and eye. He lanced the wound with a scalpel but the incision produced no fluid, neither blood nor pus. While they were in the field they were resupplied with food and supplies every four days. The standard operating procedure was that anyone needing to go to the rear would do so on a resupply day when the choppers returned to the firebase after resupplying their unit. On that day, 6 August, they were resupplied. Mr. L- M- suggested to their company commander that he be evacuated on the return helicopter after resupply, but the company commander refused to do so. He did not then and do not now question his decision because (a) he was the ranking officer; and (b) for him, the decision was not only a medical decision, it was also a tactical decision. He was the battalion Radio Telephone Operator (RTO), and his job was critical. He knew the call signs of other units, and he was familiar with the encryption codes that disguised their transmissions. So he could not be evacuated from the field until a qualified replacement could take his place. Furthermore, he was still ambulatory. The end result was that he was not evacuated on 6 August 6. (10) The next day, 7 August, five days after he was wounded, he awoke in the morning with a raging infection in his left eye. The eye was swollen closed and his eyelid was glued to his cheek by green mucous matter. It was obvious that the wound he suffered during the firefight had become infected. Mr. L- M- examined his eye for a third time. He again asked the company commander to evacuate him, but he again received a negative reply. (11) The next day, 8 August, six days after he was wounded, the swelling of his eye area of his face was so great that his facial profile when viewed from his left side showed no outline of his nose. His eye had swelled out to a point even with the bridge of his nose. The edge of his left eyelid was at the level of the bottom of his nose on the left side of his face. Mr. L- M- again asked the company commander to evacuate him, but his request was again refused. He can only surmise that no suitable, qualified replacement had been found to replace him as company RTO. During this time, he carried the radio and did his duties. They were scheduled to be resupplied two days later on 10 August. Mr. L- M- planned to have him returned to the firebase on resupply day. By the time resupply day arrived, he had a fever of 104 degrees. For some reason, he was not evacuated on 10 August. (12) The next day, 11 August, nine days after he was wounded and five days after the infection in his eye had become evident, he had a fever of 105 degrees. When they were again resupplied on 14 August, he was again not evacuated. Finally, the next day, 15 August 1970, the company commander approved his evacuation and he was extracted from the field by helicopter. This was 13 days after he was wounded in the eye, and nine days after the infection had become obvious. On 15 August, after returning to Landing Zone (LZ) Uplift, he went to the battalion aid station. Eventually, he was examined by Captain (CPT) P-. C-, the 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Battalion Surgeon, a medical officer (physician) who was the highest-ranking medical officer in the Battalion. CPT P- C- expressed concern about the condition of his eye. He feared that he would lose his eye because of the infection. He asked him how long the eye had been infected. He said, "Nine days." CPT P- C- replied, "You should have been evacuated nine days ago." Via helicopter, he immediately sent him as a priority patient to the 67th Evacuation Hospital in Qui Nhon, a city about 50 miles south of LZ Uplift. He arrived at and was admitted to the 67th Evacuation Hospital the evening of 15 August 1970. There he was treated for his injury, and he spent five days in the hospital. He was released and returned to the field to rejoin the command post of A Company. (13) In denying his previous requests for a Purple Heart, HRC relied upon (A) the absence of official records showing that he was wounded by direct enemy action; (B) an early erroneous diagnosis by Mr. L- M- that his wound was possibly a spider bite; (C) the absence of official records showing that he received medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action; and (D) existing medical records that indicate that his injuries were not a result of hostile enemy action. HRC was wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong with regard to each of these grounds for denial. He was wounded by enemy action. HRC relies upon the absence of official records showing he was wounded by direct enemy action. Their company kept poor records of men who were wounded but not evacuated from the field. The practice of poor record-keeping in their company regarding wounded Soldiers who were not evacuated is confirmed by the supporting statement of Mr. E-. Mc-. For six months, Mr. E- Mc- was the platoon leader of one of the platoons in their company. Thereafter, for six months he was the S-1 Adjutant (Personnel). He was serving in the latter capacity at the time he was wounded. Mr. E- Mc- also states that in his role as S-1 battalion adjutant officer in August of 1970, he had jurisdiction over his personnel records. He adds that had he known of the facts of his case, he and his staff would have then included his name on the battalions list of Soldiers who should receive the Purple Heart. Mr. E- Mc-'s statement regarding poor record-keeping in their company and battalion is supported by the statement of former medic Mr. R- M-, who submitted his statement in support of the application of Mr. K-K- Jr., for correction of records and an award of the Purple Heart. (14) Mr. K- K- did much of the research in his case. He compiled the exhibits and interviewed witnesses and drafted their statements. He authenticates this evidence. He states that he too was the victim of poor record-keeping by their company and battalion. Like him, he was wounded in battle, treated in the field, and was not evacuated. His Army records were devoid of mention of his wound and its treatment. His DD Form 214 did not list a Purple Heart as one of the awards to which he was entitled. Furthermore, there were no official medical records documenting the treatment of his wound by the medic. Mr. K- K- applied to the HRC for an award of the Purple Heart. HRC denied his request. Thereafter, Mr. K- K- applied to the Board to correct the omissions in his records. After Mr. K- K- submitted a mountain of evidence and battled with the Board for five years, the Board finally granted him full relief. (15) While Mr. K- K-'s case was pending before the Board, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided H- v. Secretary of the Army. In Mr. K- K-‘s opinion, this federal appellate decision is controlling law in cases such as his and mine. Indeed, the Board clearly relied upon the H- case and quoted heavily from that case in its final and favorable decision in Mr. K-K-'s case. A copy of the favorable Board decision in Mr. K-K-'s case is attached. Mr. K- K- also assisted Mr. W- J-, one of his former platoon members, in the preparation of Mr. W- J-s' application to the Board for correction of his records and for the award of a Purple Heart. Mr. W- J- was wounded in action by hostile enemy action, his wound was treated in the field, and he was not evacuated. His records omitted these facts. After the case was contested for over five years, the Board granted complete relief to Mr. W- J-. In Mr. W- J-s' case, the Board again relied upon the H- case and quoted heavily from that case in its final and favorable decision. A copy of the Board decision in Mr. W- J-s' case is attached. It is the absence of an official record of an incident that actually occurred that he claims to be erroneous. An applicant is entitled to claim that the absence of information in his official records is an error that the Secretary should correct. In its decision in the H- case attached, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the veteran. (16) Like Mr. H- did in his own case, he has submitted to the Board independent evidence that he was wounded by enemy action. His own sworn statement attests to this. If the Board has any doubts about his personal credibility, then the Board should grant him a hearing as he has requested on DD Form 149. At the hearing, the Board can question him and can evaluate for itself his credibility. He also agrees to submit to a polygraph test if the Board requests or requires that he do so. In addition to his own statement, his former company commander has submitted a sworn statement that corroborates that he was wounded by hostile fire. Colonel (COL) W- P- (USA Retired.) has written a detailed sworn statement in support of his present application to the Board. In his supporting statement, COL W- P- confirms (among other details) that he was wounded by hostile fire in the upper region of his body (he could not recall the specific site); that the wound became infected; that he should have been evacuated on the day that he was wounded; and that he was not evacuated until later. (17) CPT P- C- also states that medical records which fail to record the origin of his injury as a wound caused by direct enemy action are wrong and must be corrected. On 15 August when he was admitted into the hospital, the hospital staff filled out two forms: (1) a "Clinical Records Cover Sheet (DA Form 8-275-3), hereafter referred to as the "CRCS"; and (2) "Patient Admission Form" (67th Evacuation Hospital Form 74), hereafter referred to as the "PAF". Both forms are included in his medical records. On the CRCS, hospital personnel marked that the type of his case was "DIS" rather than "INJ," which presumably means "Disease'' rather than "Injury." While it is true that an infected eye is a "diseased" eye, the actual origin of the wound was an "injury," which after several days of festering became a disease. Thus, if HRC or the Board relies upon the CRCS to establish the origin of his wound, such reliance is plainly wrong. On the PAF, in the section marked "Injury Info,'' there were three possible choices to be marked. They were ''NBI" (Non-Battle Injury), "WIA" (Wounded in Action), and "DIS" (Disease). Hospital personnel marked "DIS", which correctly describes his symptoms 13 days after he was wounded. But again, the written mark on this form cannot and must not be relied on by anyone or any board or agency to establish the origin of his wound. This form is plainly wrong because he was "WIA" 13 days before the form was filled out. In his sworn statement, Dr. P- C- states that the admission/intake information contained on the medical records generated by the staff or other personnel of the 67th Evacuation Hospital is incorrect because those records note that the source of his injury is ''NBI," meaning "non-battle injury," or "DIS," meaning "disease." Dr. P- C- states that these medical records should be corrected to show that the actual origin source of his injury was "WIA," meaning "wounded in action," and "INJ," meaning "injury." Any mistake or confusion could have been avoided if someone had actually interviewed him or questioned him when he was admitted to the hospital, but no one did so. He was never asked to explain the origin of his injury. Had he been asked for this information, he would have informed the medical personnel that he was wounded by hostile fire in a firefight with the enemy. He never signed the PAF because he never saw that document until decades after he left Vietnam and the war. He believes that because he was transported to the hospital from their base camp rather than from the field, the staff of the hospital assumed that his injury was a non-battle injury resulting from a disease. Their assumption may have been reasonable under the circumstances, given his symptoms that they observed at the time he was admitted, and given the time lapse between the time he was wounded and the time he was admitted to the hospital. So when he was admitted the medical staff filled out the PAF and described the symptoms of his wound, without knowing and recording the origin of his wound. If their entries on the forms were intended to identify the origin of his wound, they were plainly wrong. b. NPRC letter wherein the Senator R- D- was informed that no record had been found to show the applicant was given medical treatment for wounds or injuries received in action. In the absence of such records, the Purple Heart may not be authorized. c. December 2018, HRC letter that states in pertinent part, the Awards and Decorations Branch, the Army's proponent for military awards, is not a research center or a records repository. To ensure your submitted request is complete, all requests should include a copy of the veteran's/retiree's separation or discharge paperwork and any other supporting documentation to substantiate the request. If you believe your request is missing documentation, we encourage you to send official supporting documentation at your earliest convenience to avoid further delays. d. January 2019, HRC letter that states in pertinent part, based upon review of the forwarded documentation, we remain unable to authorize the award of the Purple Heart, as we have previously denied your request. If you believe this response is unfair or unjust, you have the right to appeal to the ABCMR, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of the Army and has final authority over matters in this nature. He was provided with instructions to petition the Board. e. ABCMR Docket Number AR20180011093 letter wherein the applicant was informed that he had not exhausted all administrative remedies in his request for the Purple Heart and should contact HRC. f. History of the 173rd Infantry Brigade wherein the document shows in the vicinity of grid coordinate BR 846744 the unit received fire, resulting in two U.S. service members WIA. g. DA Form 1594 showing an entry on lines 27, 28, and 29 for the evacuation of two urgent casualties from A Company, 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, one of which was the units head medic. h. Area maps showing the unit area of operations, with a hand written entry indicating the applicant, Mr. M- T-, and Mr. D- M- as being wounded. i. Patient admission form and allied documents wherein the applicant was admitted on 15 August 1970 for a disease diagnosed as an abscess in the left upper eyelid. The abscess was drained and the applicant spent five days at the 67th Evacuation Hospital. It was noted that at the time of consultation the abscess was nine days old. j. U.S Court of Appeals Case Mr. K- H- v. Secretary of the Army wherein the petitioner was seeking to be awarded the Purple Heart on the basis of injuries received after an enemy rocket attack. The petitioner was treated but treatment was not documented. The petitioner had been denied by the Board previously. The Court vacated the Boards decision because it was arbitrary and capricious and found the letters of support and photographs submitted clearly state he was wounded in action. The void in the petitioners’ records is the very error he sought to be corrected to secure the Purple Heart. The case was remanded to the Board. k. ABCMR Docket Numbers: (1) AR20150003755 (Court Remand) of the U.S. Court of Appeals case which was granted. (2) ABCMR Docket Number AR20150016799 (case of Mr. K- K-) in which the applicant petitioned the Board for a reconsideration to be awarded the Purple Heart based on his previous requests being misinterpreted based on the omission that he was treated for a wound sustained as a result of enemy action and the applicant was granted full relief. (3) ABCMR Docket Number (case of Mr. W- J-) in which after two denials the applicant petitioned the Board for a reconsideration to be awarded the Purple Heart based on the omission that he was treated for a wound sustained as a result of enemy action, that his wound required medical treatment, and he received medical treatment, and the applicant was granted full relief. l. Letter authored by Mr. K- K- wherein the author (the applicant’s platoon sergeant at the time) writes a letter to Dr. A- E- requesting assistance because at the time Dr. A- E- was the medical officer stationed at the 67th Evacuation Hospital. His request was for Dr. A- E- to support the applicant’s application with a statement that simply says that unless the hospital staff was specifically informed that the source of an injury like the applicant’s was the result of enemy action, the staff would assume that the wound resulted from disease and would as a matter of standard operating procedure mark the "DIS" space of the form. They need to overcome the presumptive accuracy of the official records by presenting facts that establish the truth. m. Dr. A- E- reply to Mr. K- K- wherein Dr. A- E- states in pertinent part, he cannot remember the applicant’s case. If there exists progress notes somewhere it would be helpful. The sheet for the admission was filled out partly by a clerk who even misspelled his name. His diagnosis was "abscess of the left upper eyelid" which he drained, according to his notes. If there would have been "a wound" he would have certainly written so. Accordingly, he believe the applicant had an infection spreading from the eye to the upper eyelid. What exactly caused the infection he does not know. n. Mr. K- K- reply to Dr. A- E- that states in pertinent part, in a few days he would send him a copy of the applicant’s statement, and a copy of the statement of a at the time CPT P- C-, M.D., the former Battalion Surgeon of the 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade. He would also send him a draft of a supporting statement for him to review, and to possibly submit in support of the applicant’s case. It would essentially state that the notations on the admission form simply recorded the case symptoms as it was presented to him, and were not meant to be the final judgment on the initial source of the applicant’s injury, which you did not know. o. Dr. A- E- reply to Mr. K- K- that states in pertinent part, the check mark on the "admission's sheet" placed at "DISEASE" was done by the same clerk who should have talked to the applicant (and maybe he did?). And he believes the applicant signed at the bottom of the face sheet. Tell the Army that they should accept the statement from CPT P- C- who should be the person who can judge this case as far as it being a combat injury or not. p. Mr. K- K- reply to Dr. A- E- that states in pertinent part, the applicant did not sign at the bottom of the admission sheet. No one asked the origin of his injury. All medical personnel were justified in marking the sheet "Disease" based upon the symptoms that they saw. It is just that the Army is seizing upon this marking as the final word in the origin of the injury, which is factually incorrect. q. Applicant email to Dr. A- E- that states in pertinent part, on the night he was admitted to the 67th Evacuation Hospital, he was resting freshly showered in his bed, the first bed on the right after entering the ward. At approximately 9:30 pm the door swung open and in walked a very astute looking major (MAJ) with glasses. He believes the MAJ was him and he remembers exactly what he (Dr. A- E-) said. He asked, "Did you just come in tonight?" The applicant answered "Yes sir", then he added "Okay you are my patient." Dr. A- E- proceeded to the nurse's station in the middle of the ward. There he retrieved a number of items to begin treatment. He returned to the applicant’s bed and at some point explained to him that he had been at the United Service Organization when a runner came to request him for a special patient at the hospital. He explained that he was going to take a couple of samples for a culture in order to make sure he had prescribed the correct medicine to combat the infection in his eye. At that point he took a pair of scissors, stuck them in the incision the doctor or medic had made when he first entered the hospital. After snipping a larger opening he took a wooden swab, inserted it in his eye lid and rapidly moved it in a side to side motion then removed it, inserted the swab in a small brown bottle and breaking the stick off even with the top of the bottle. Next he followed up with another swab. This time the motion was up and down in the open incision followed by removal of the swab and placed it in the same brown bottle as the first. He then squeezed some medicine from a tube and explained that would keep the incision from closing and keep the wound draining then he covered his eye with a full gauze bandage. With that he said he would return the next day and let him know if there were changes. Dr. A E- then left the hospital. Four days later after being under his expert care, he left the hospital with only a band aid covering his wound. For that he thanked him because after talking with CPT P- C- he understood he was concerned about him losing his eye when he saw him. r. Dr. A- E- reply to the applicant that states in pertinent part, there was nothing he could or would question about the description of the applicant’s minor surgery at the 67th Evacuation Hospital, because as much as he tried he could not recall the details of the applicant’s surgery. Actually he did not see that many eye infections in Vietnam because they were usually handled by the local physicians. The 67th Evacuation Hospital had a staff of 60 physicians and just one Ophthalmologist, which was he, as long as he was there. s. Dr. A- E- statement that states in pertinent part: (1) He, hereby make this statement in the matter involving the application of the applicant to have his Army records corrected to reflect that in 1970 he was wounded by hostile fire while in combat in Vietnam. The applicant's ultimate objective is to receive a Purple Heart he believes he earned. During the Vietnam War, he was drafted into the U.S. Army. He served as a medical officer in the II Corp military region in South Vietnam. By 1970, he was assigned to the 67th Evacuation Hospital located at Qui Nhon, in Binh Dinh province. Among the patients they treated were wounded Soldiers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade which patrolled in that region. (2) He has reviewed certain medical records involving the applicant’s treatment at the 67th Evacuation Hospital in August of 1970. He has no independent recollection of treating the applicant at the time, but the records indicate that he was his treating physician. According to the records, the applicant was treated for an abscess of his left upper eyelid. After five days of treatment he was discharged and returned to full duty. The "DIS" notations on the forms reflect the symptoms observed by medical personnel when the applicant came into the hospital. He has read the sworn statements of the applicant, his company commander (Mr. W- P-), and the 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Battalion Surgeon at the time (CPT P- C-, M.D.). Those statements are evidence that the actual origin of the injury was hostile fire. Since the applicant was not treated until nine or ten days after his initial injury, by that time his eye had become diseased. Thus, the "DIS" notation on the medical intake forms correctly states the applicant’s then current symptoms, but does not accurately reflect the actual origin of his injury, which he and other witnesses state to be hostile fire. (3) Based on the foregoing and if the applicant’s evidence is credible, then the medical records that state that characterize his injury as "DIS" are only correct insofar as these records describe his symptoms when he came into the hospital. These records are or may be incorrect insofar as they purport to describe the actual origin of his injury. t. Applicant sworn statement previously summarized in his opening statement to the Board. u. Mr. L- M- statement that states: (1) As was his custom after every encounter resulting in a firefight he would (after things had calmed down and was reasonably safe) contact anyone involved in the action that was not evacuated out at the time. It was his responsibility to look for any physical or mental problems resulting from the encounter. As a result, the applicant’s concerns at the time was a scrape on the neck that he could not account for. It appeared to be minor and his mental condition was what he determined to be normal after being shot at and seeing friends gravely wounded. They talked a little bit about hearing bullets go by and some hitting close enough to kick dirt up into the applicant’s face and how lucky some of them were. (2) On a normal check up in the next day or so to ask about the applicant’s neck and how things were, he mentioned his neck was getting better but his eye was bothering him. He looked at his eye and determined it to be a bite, most likely a spider. He is sure he advised him to keep a watch on it and let him know of any changes. It seems to him the eye was not getting any better in the next few days and the applicant asked him if the bite should be moving. It had swollen up a bit and had obviously moved and had become more infected. It deteriorated over the next few days enough that he suggested he be sent out as soon as possible. They were to be resupplied soon and a replacement was requested for the applicant. On the day he was supposed to go out they talked about how bad it had become and were both glad he was leaving. The applicant’s replacement did not come out on their resupply and he was not allowed to go back to the base hospital. In a day or so it was to a point he insisted on a chopper out and the applicant was finally able to get the attention his eye needed. (3) When the applicant was not back out in the field in the next couple of resupply's he thought that to mean things were not going well. As things did over there days turned into weeks and new personnel replaced some of them and the applicant was lost in the shuffle. He was not aware of the extent of his eye injury until sometime later. He is sure the injury to his eye was from the firefight in early August and was sorry to hear the problems he was having to confirm these facts. v. Mr. W- P- sworn statement that states in pertinent part: (1) He knew and served with the applicant while serving as the Commanding Officer of A Company, 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade. He was one of A Company's two RTOs - one RTO for the battalion radio net and a second for the company radio net - located at the company's Command Post (CP) and he was always close by. The applicant was the battalion RTO and spent his assigned time with A Company, 3rd Battalion as a field combat infantryman. (2) Over the years, he had learned that members of his battalion were wounded, not evacuated, and never received their Purple Hearts because of the lack of reports made of these incidents. The applicant was one of these men. Unfortunately, this was due to the failure of their unit to report injuries that did not require evacuation. If a Soldier was physically able to remain in the field, he did so. However, in the applicant’s case, he has obtained and has submitted his medical records, which show treatment for his wound. (3) He possess and have read portions of the official daily combat operation report and the daily staff journal of the 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade for the period July-September, 1970. The entries for 2 August 1970 report the firefight in which the applicant and two others were wounded. The report notes that the other two Soldiers were evacuated, but fails to note that the applicant was wounded, because he was not evacuated. These reports are wrong because they omitted the mention of the applicant’s injury and the field treatment thereof. But his medical records do show that he was later treated and hospitalized as a result of his wound. So the Army's failures to award him a Purple Heart and to note this award on his DD Form 214 are erroneous omissions that must be corrected. (4) To the best of his recollection, the facts regarding the applicant’s case are as follows. On 2 August 1970, A Company, 3rd Battalion, combat assaulted via helicopter into Binh Dinh Province, to grid coordinates BR 846744. The CP was collocated with A Company's second platoon. Soon after establishing their CP on a small knoll overlooking A Company's assault area/objective, they received small arms hostile fire. Soon after that, their CP received a well-aimed burst of automatic enemy rifle fire that struck their senior medic (Specialist Five (SP5) D- M-) in the hip/leg area causing a severe wound with heavy bleeding and their communications chief (SGT M- T-) in the lower leg/ankle, both wounded men requiring extraction. A medevac helicopter was called in, arriving with a jungle penetrator (seat), and the wounded senior medic and communications chief were extracted and air transported to the nearest medical installation. (5) During this engagement, the applicant was wounded by incoming hostile fire. He recalls that his wound was in the upper portion of his body. The applicant states that he was slightly wounded in his neck and in his eye. He was treated in the field by the second platoon, Specialist Four (Mr.) L- M-. The applicant was not evacuated, remaining in the field. It was not known at this time that his eye wound could and would become infected. It is clear now from subsequent events that he also should have been evacuated on 2 August 1970. (6) The applicant states that in the days after he was wounded, he repeatedly refused to grant permission to have the applicant evacuated for further medical treatment. He does not recall this, but he has no reason to doubt his assertions so he accepts them as true. If he did this, he presumes that he did so because (a) he did not fully understand the steadily increasing seriousness of his infected wound, (b) he needed to await the availability of a skilled and qualified RTO replacement for him, or (c) for both of the two reasons. (7) The evidence that has been gathered and presented on behalf of the applicant's application show that he was wounded by hostile enemy fire; that his wound required medical treatment; that his wound was initially treated in the field by a platoon medic and was later treated in the hospital by a doctor; and that there is a record of the latter treatment. This evidence is more than sufficient to prove beyond any doubt that the applicant is entitled to have his Army records corrected to show his entitlement to an award of the Purple Heart. w. Mr. M- T- sworn statement that states in pertinent part: (1) On 2 August 1970, the CP of A Company, and the second platoon were patrolling in the Phan Rang Valley. They found a North Vietnamese enemy base camp with about 20 bunkers. They began to secure the area by establishing a defensive perimeter. As they began to form a perimeter, all hell broke loose. The enemy ambushed them by spraying them with automatic small arms fire. He proceeded to take cover and was hit by a round. As he landed on the ground, he lost his glasses. An AK- 47 bullet struck him in the heel of his foot, tearing out his Achilles tendon. Another Soldier, "SP5 D- M- ", was wounded in the leg and hip. (2) He received medical treatment from someone, but he does not know who. The medevac chopper arrived, hovered overhead and lowered a jungle penetrator seat down to their position. He was helped onto the seat, strapped in, and lifted out of the jungle. He was taken to the 67th Evacuation Hospital, then flown to Camp Drake, Japan. Eventually, he was sent to Fort Sheridan and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital. His tendon was medically reconstructed. While at Camp Drake, he received his Purple Heart. Without his glasses, he could not see very well. Thus, he does not know if the applicant was wounded or treated in that incident. He does know the following: (a) the incoming fire they received in that incident was hostile enemy small arms fire; (b) the hostile fire caused wounds to some of them; (c) the wounds of which he was aware of required medical treatment; (d) SPC D- M- and him were treated and evacuated. (3) Attached is a copy of his orders showing his award of the Purple Heart. These orders also show the name of SP5 D- M- who was wounded in the same incident. The orders do not show the name of the applicant. If he was wounded and treated in the same incident, then these orders are incorrect and incomplete. Correct orders would include the name of the applicant. x. GO Number 167, issued by Headquarters, 67th Evacuation Hospital, awarded the Purple Heart to SGT M- T-, and SP5 D- M- for wounds received in action. y. Dr. (CPT) P- C- sworn statement that states in pertinent part: (1) From January 1970 to January 1971, he served as the ranking medical officer, i.e., the Battalion Surgeon, of the 3rd Battalion, 503d Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade, based at LZ Uplift, a rear staging area, just south of Bong Song, in Binh Dinh Province, II Corps Military Region, in the Republic of South Vietnam. His duties included supervision of all medical matters involving the Soldiers of the battalion, including the creation and maintenance of complete and accurate medical records. (2) Normally, when a Soldier was wounded in the field, his wound, whether slight or serious, would be treated by a field medic assigned to his unit. More serious wounds could result in evacuation of the wounded Soldier to the battalion aid station or a nearby hospital, where appropriate notations of the medical treatment would be made in the Soldier's medical records. Less serious, non-disabling wounds that did not require evacuation were also treated by field medics, whose responsibility it was to report such wounds and treatment so that there would be a record of such. This was an administrative reporting function of the medic, not a responsibility of the wounded Soldier. Thus, if a Soldier was wounded and the wound required and received treatment, whether he was evacuated or not, the wound and the medical treatment of it should have been recorded in the Soldier's medical records. It is important to note that a non-disabling wound that did not require evacuation could still have been severe enough that the wound would have been treated by a medical officer had he been available to render such treatment. As earlier stated, it is unlikely that such a medical officer would have been available in the field to give such treatment, especially in the areas where the applicant was actively engaged in combat operations against the enemy. (3) In the applicant's case, the fact of his wounding and the initial field treatment of his wound were not made part of his medical records. But based upon his personal knowledge of the later deterioration of his physical condition due to a severe infection of his wound, it was then and is now his professional opinion rendered to an absolute degree of medical certainty (and it would have been his professional opinion rendered to the same degree of certainty in 1970) that: (a) the applicant’s wound was initially treated by the field medic. But given the danger of infection, he should have been immediately evacuated. (b) The extent of the applicant’s wound was such that it required treatment by a medical officer, if one had been available to treat the wound; and (c) there was no medical officer in the field at that time who could have treated the applicant’s wound. After several days during which his wound festered due to a raging and serious infection, he was finally evacuated out of the field to their base camp at LZ Uplift. At that time, he personally examined and treated the applicant's eye wound which was caused by hostile enemy small arms fire. His wound was so serious that he was concerned the applicant might develop cavernous sinus thrombosis, a rare but potentially life-threatening condition in which a blood clot blocks a vein that runs through a hollow space underneath the brain and behind the eye sockets. He feared that he might lose his eye. (4) Based upon his medical condition, he immediately sent the applicant via helicopter to the 67th Evacuation Hospital in Qui Nhon. He spent a few days in the hospital, where he was treated by a medical officer. He has reviewed copies of the applicant’s medical records, which confirm his admission and stay in the hospital, and which also confirm his treatment by a medical officer. The records are authentic. However, he believes that there are errors in the records that describe the origin of his wound. The relevant pages of his records that contain these errors are attached to this statement, DD Form 8-275-3. On that page in the section marked "Type of Injury," someone put a check mark in the box marked "DIS," which means "Disease." This notation is incorrect, because the source of the applicant’s wound was hostile enemy small arms fire. This form should be corrected by marking the box "INJ" because he was wounded in action. On page two of the medical records, a similar error occurs. There is check mark in the space marked "DIS." This should be corrected to show a check mark in the space marked "WIA'' because the applicant was wounded in action. z. Mr. E- MC- sworn statement that states in pertinent part: (1) Because fighting units were always shorthanded, wounded Soldiers often remained in the field as long as they were ambulatory. If these Soldiers were treated in the field but not evacuated, the fact and the treatment of their wounds were often not made a part of their official records. This is what happened in the applicant's case. But in his case, he was eventually evacuated after his wound became badly infected. Back at LZ Uplift, he was examined by Dr. (CPT) P- C-, a physician who was then the Battalion Surgeon, the highest-ranking medical officer in the 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry. Dr. P- C- immediately sent the applicant for treatment at a nearby hospital, where he remained for a few days and was treated by another Army medical officer who was also a physician. The applicant's official medical records support the above facts. They are the irrefutable evidence in support of his application to the Board to correct his other official records, including his DD Form 214. (2) As 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry S-1 Battalion Adjutant (Personnel) Officer in August of 1970, he had jurisdiction over the applicant’s official records. Had he known the facts of his case, including the fact that his medical records at the time showed the fact and treatment of his wound, he and his office would have included the applicant's name on the 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry's list of Soldiers who should be awarded the Purple Heart. He would have received Purple Heart in 1970. aa. Mr. K- K- sworn statement that states in pertinent part; (1) His unit was A Company, 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade. His own first platoon consisted of about 35 men: three ten-man squads of riflemen, and a CP of about five men, including platoon leader, a platoon sergeant (him), an RTO, a combat medic, a Vietnamese "Kit Carson" scout, and sometimes an artillery forward observer. The applicant served with their second platoon of their company, and later became part of the command group called the CP. During their tour, they were stationed mainly in Binh Dinh province, in the military II Corp area of South Vietnam. They patrolled in such places as Phan Thiet, Bao Loe, Thanh Thuy, Bong Son, Phu My, Tuy Hoa, the Nui Loi mountains, the "Crow's Foot'' (a confluence of rivers), and the dreaded An Lao Valley, a long-time, traditional enemy stronghold that was part of the famed Ho Chi Minh trail. They patrolled in squad-sized units (10 men) all day. They conducted nightly ambushes via either squads or "Hawk" teams, i.e., fire team size units (5-6 men). Their mission was to search for and to kill North Vietnamese Army soldiers and Viet Cong, who we frequently encountered and fought on a recurring basis. His platoon was also sent on several especially dangerous duty assignments because they were experienced, reliable, competent and well-led. They were not heroes, but they carried their fair share of searching for, finding, engaging and killing the enemy. As worthy adversaries, they did the same to us. (2) In preparing this statement and to assist the applicant in preparing his case before the Board, he has not only searched his own memory, but he has also reviewed the battle records of the 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, including the after-action reports and other declassified records. Excerpts from these records are attached in support of the applicant's application. He either personally obtained copies of these records from the National Archives, or from fellow veterans who themselves obtained the records from the National Archives. Thus, these records are true and correct copies of these documents. He has given to the applicant portions of these official daily combat operation reports and the daily staff journal for the period July-September, 1970. The entries for 2 August 1970 report the firefight in which the applicant and two other Soldiers were wounded. The reports note that the two Soldiers who were wounded were evacuated, but fails to note that the applicant was also wounded, because he was not evacuated. He also obtained true and correct copies of other documents submitted by the applicant as exhibits to his statement of the case. Included in these exhibits is a map showing the exact location of the skirmish in which the applicant was wounded; a copy of an appellate legal decision; a copy of a favorable Board decision in his own case; and a copy of a favorable Board decision in the case of Mr. W- J-, a former member of their platoon and company in the 173d Airborne Brigade. bb. Ms. K- Mc- letter that states in pertinent part: (1) The specific impetus for this inquiry was the existing regulation which sets a term of three years to request that one's military record be corrected, such as to include consideration for adding a Purple Heart to that record. As someone who has not served in the military, the first consideration she would address was the point in one's military service when knowledge about the Purple Heart was acquired. Including in this awareness was not only that the Purple Heart is awarded only under specific circumstances, but also the process through which the award is granted at the time of an injury, and the procedure for requesting the award after the fact or for correcting the military record if it does not reflect that it has been awarded. For example, if one is not an officer, a medic, a noncommissioned officer, or possibly the company clerk, when and to what extent are the details about the Purple Heart or any other medal discussed? (2) An additional and related consideration is whether the individual seeking correction of the military record was voluntarily in the service, or whether that individual, such as a Vietnam veteran, was drafted, or was given an option to sign up for the military or face the probability of time in jail or prison. Incidental to the question of those who were part of the draft, in particular, is the question of cognitive abilities - what was the incidence of learning disabilities or below average intellectual functioning which could have adversely affected an individual's ability to comprehend and/or retain information in a briefing and/or written information about procedures, if such information were made available. Compound any difficulty associated with basic cognitive abilities with the emotional distress likely to be present as the individual is faced with the prospect of imminent danger and possible death, and the probability that one will attend to the details about awards would certainly be less likely. (3) The second set of circumstances with bearing on one's awareness about the timing and procedures surrounding the award of a Purple Heart would be the combat event, itself, in which an injury is sustained. The life-and-death nature of the combat situation is likely to produce a flight-or-flight [sic] response in those involved, resulting in a heightened level of adrenalin, enabling the person to carry out whatever survival tasks are required. If wounded, the person may not even recognize that this has occurred until some time later, or may minimize the significance of an injury - especially if others have died. The individual may experience an acute stress disorder, realizing how close to death he has come. The level of emotional distress experienced at that time is not likely to place a high priority on being certain that appropriate procedures are followed to secure the Purple Heart. In addition, it is not unusual to have problems recalling the details of the situation, and a young Soldier who has just escaped death may even begin to doubt that certain memories are accurate. (4) Given the three year restriction on correcting the military record, the third set of circumstances with bearing on awareness about timing and procedures could be the presence of a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The anxiety that accompanies the re-experiencing of traumatic events, a key symptom of PTSD, typically leads to some pattern of avoidance. Avoiding thinking about the event in which one was injured likely means attempting not to think about any aspect of the life-threatening event, including how one sustained an injury. While the avoidance seems effective for brief periods, but without treatment for the disorder, the thoughts and memories continue to intrude into the individual's life. The effort to avoid escalates as this becomes the primary coping mechanism. The timeframe for the intrusive thoughts and memories has no boundaries. Correcting a military record may require securing documentation and supporting statements. This places the individual in a position contrary to the avoidance by which he has learned to control the emotional distress and intense anxiety of reliving (not just remembering) the trauma associated with the events during which an injury was sustained. cc. Mr. R- M- sworn statement that states in pertinent part: (1) During his tour in Vietnam he served as a combat medic assigned to Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173 Airborne Brigade. He was routinely sent to the field with different companies/platoons of 3rd Battalion. His duties as a combat field medic were to treat the day to day sickness and injuries and teach prevention measures to the Soldiers. He also served in the field as any other Soldier. During the times of enemy contact he was responsible for the treatment and if needed the evacuation of the injured. After the contact it was his responsibility to notify the platoon sergeant or the next in the chain of command of who was injured, the severity of the injury and if evacuation was necessary. They in turn sent the notification up the chain to Headquarters. (2) He was assigned to the first platoon, A Company, 3rd Battalion, 503rd Infantry from sometime in June/July 1969 and left in mid-October 1969 due to an injury; he has reviewed his 201 and Medical files since his last statement. During his time with first platoon he served with Staff Sergeant (SSG) K- K-, who was now seeking the award of the Purple Heart. During his time in the field he treated many Soldiers with a variety of combat related injuries. All his treatment records were routinely sent to the aid station with each medical resupply request as was required of medics. He did not keep personal records or a diary as he did not want it to fall into the wrong hands. Points to consider; 1. He was injured in a rocket attack treated in the aid station for damage to his right hand; he like SSG K- K- do not remember the date. Upon leaving Vietnam he was given a Purple Heart. Yet his medical records, which he has, do not reflect treatment for his injury. Poor record keeping. 2. Statement in denial letter by JDC (unknown acronym) acknowledges that and he quotes "Based on his JDC experience, the battalion staff did not act consistently and comprehensively to ensure reported battle wounds were recognized. Again this is another instance of poor record keeping by those whose job was to keep the records. 3. There are two statements in the denial letter that says he was the treating medic and he has no reason to dispute that. 4. If AR 600-8-22 states that there needs to be treatment by medical personnel, yet there are statements to the fact and also proof that during the time in question the record keeping at the aid station and S-2/S-3 were not up to military standards, then the requirements of AR 600-8-22 have been satisfied. 4. AR 672-5-1 (Awards) in effect at the time (20 June 1969), paragraph 34 states the Purple Heart is awarded to members serving in the U.S. Armed Services that have been wounded in any action against an enemy of the U.S. For the purpose of considering an award of this decoration, a "wound" is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained in action against an enemy of the U.S. A physical lesion is not required, provided the concussion or other form of injury is directly due to enemy, opposing Armed Force, or hostile foreign force action. It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound/injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken which would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. For example: In a case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down by enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made. 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 must have been made a matter of official record. 5. Department of Defense (DOD) Manual Number 1348.33 (Manual of Military Decorations and Awards), Volume 3, 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. 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.· 6. AR 15-185 (ABMCR) states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and evidence in the records. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, the available medical documentation, available unit records, statements provided in support of his claim and other ABCMR cases cited by the applicant. The Board considered the Soldiers referenced in the unit records and subsequent award of the Purple Heart for injuries incurred on the date stated by the applicant. The Board considered the reviews of his request conducted by Human Resources Command, the absence of his name on the Casualty Roster, his evaluation by the Battalion Surgeon, his hospital admission, the nature and documented cause of his condition and the treatment he received. The Board found insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant’s injury was a result of hostile forces actions. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the denial of award of a Purple Heart, as the applicant requests, was not in error or unjust. 2. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 3. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. ? BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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. 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. ? REFERENCES: 1. AR 672-5-1 (Awards) in effect at the time (20 June 1969), paragraph 34 states the Purple Heart is awarded to members serving in the U.S. Armed Services that have been wounded in any action against an enemy of the U.S. For the purpose of considering an award of this decoration, a "wound" is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained in action against an enemy of the U.S. A physical lesion is not required, provided the concussion or other form of injury is directly due to enemy, opposing Armed Force, or hostile foreign force action. It is not intended that such a strict interpretation of the requirement for the wound/injury to be caused by direct result of hostile action be taken which would preclude the award being made to deserving personnel. For example: In a case such as an individual injured while making a parachute landing from an aircraft that had been brought down by enemy fire; or, an individual injured as a result of a vehicle accident caused by enemy fire, the decision will be made in favor of the individual and the award will be made. 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 must have been made a matter of official record. 2. DOD Manual Number 1348.33 (Manual of Military Decorations and Awards), Volume 3, 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. 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. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. Additionally, it states in paragraph 2-11 that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190011145 24 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1