RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 NOVEMBER 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050001829 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director Ms. Deborah L. Brantley Senior Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Thomas Howard Chairperson Mr. John Infante Member Ms. Carmen Duncan Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by award of the Purple Heart. 2. The applicant states that “I vehemently disagree with your decision. Apparently sitting behind a desk in Virginia does not qualify for and understanding of in ENEMY ACTION.” 3. The applicant provides no new evidence, but provides statements with rhetorical questions about his service in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) during the war. These are clearly iterated in his request, some of which are quoted herein. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR2004105710, on 21 December 2004. 2. The applicant entered on active duty on 8 February 1943, served in the European Theater of Operations during World War II, and was discharged at Indiantown Gap Military Reservation in the grade of sergeant on 8 December 1945. His records fail to show that he was wounded as a result of hostile action. 3. The 21 December 2004 Board proceedings show that the applicant provided statements of support to his request for award of the Purple Heart, all of which indicate that the applicant injured his back while jumping clear of a ramp from a landing craft on Omaha Beach in Normandy. 4. In a 14 September 1984 letter to the Veterans Administration (VA), the applicant stated that he was hospitalized shortly after the accident. This was a field hospital somewhere near Omaha Beach. He stated that they were bivouacked outside “Ver Ville Sur Mer,” and that they were dug in deep in a field. Their foxhole was dug under a hedgerow, straw lined. He, as well as his buddies, contacted a terrible scabby condition on the face due to some kind of bugs in the straw. They were all sent to the field hospital. His entire face was one massive scab. The hospitalization occurred in late June, July, or even possibly early August. That was the last hospitalization that he could remember while in the ETO. Once after that, he had voluntarily transferred to the infantry, and he had a wart burned off his finger with a red hot nail. He had received treatment a few times before but when things were about healed, up to the line he would go. In his letter he referred to the back injury that he received in Normandy in 1944, resulting in a permanent curvature of his spine. 5. The applicant’s arguments: a. “The sole purpose of going to the ETO was beyond a shadow of a doubt the result of ENEMY ACTION.” b. “ Why did I spend 2 yrs in ETO and 1 year in US?” c. “The 147 engineers hit Omaha at 7:30am on D-Day, June 6th 1944, was that ENEMY ACTION?” d. “Mounting my 30 caliber water cooled machine gun on top of the bluff at Omaha with my squad under fear of counter attack, as the 29th and 1st Infantry were not too far inland. General Bradley contemplated pulling troops back off of beach, which was yet to be secured. I suppose this was due to a boyscout troop shooting paintballs at us…or was that the result of ENEMY ACTION?” e. “Bringing in the 155 charges for our Howitzers to hold and advance our lines was that ENEMY ACTION?” f. “The resulting injury put me in a FIELD HOSPITAL in France off the line and 50 plus years of 24-7 excruciating pain…pray tell was that the result of ENEMY ACTION?” 6. The applicant continued, stating that he was “high-pressured” into signing the WD AGO Form 53-55 (separation document). This document shows in item 34 (Wounds Received in Action), the entry, “None.” 7. In referring to paragraph 16 in the Board’s 21 December 2004 proceedings, he states that the lengthy explanations verify his many “vacations” to the medics, and that the actual wounds or causes to be hospitalized not specifically noted was not his responsibility. He stated that the numerous times that he was sent to the medics by his sergeant or lieutenant was for blood resulting in loss of time from the line. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides for award of the Purple Heart. It states that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action. A physical lesion is not required, however, the 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. When contemplating an award of the Purple Heart, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary perquisite, but is not sole justification for award. 9. Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart include injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile created by enemy action; injury caused by enemy placed mine or trap; injury caused by enemy release chemical, biological, or nuclear agent; and injury caused by vehicle or aircraft accident resulting from enemy fire. 10. Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart include heat stroke, battle fatigue, disease not directly caused by enemy agents; and accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s statements are noted. The Board does not disagree with his assertions that the actions at Omaha Beach; clearing mines, booby traps, etc., bringing in 155 charges for howitzers, and so on, were because of ENEMY ACTION. Nonetheless, it is presumed that those incidents did not result in everyone involved being wounded in action or being awarded the Purple Heart. 2. Simply put, according to the logic put forth by the applicant, any injury to any Soldier who served in the ETO during World War II, no matter how slight, and no matter the circumstances, would entitle the Soldier to the Purple Heart for being wounded as a result of enemy action. By the same token, and again according to his reasoning, the rash (scabby condition) that he sustained would qualify as being wounded in action, simply because this condition would not have occurred had it not been as a result of ENEMY ACTION. 3. The Board does not disparage or malign the applicant’s honorable and faithful service that the applicant made, nor the extraordinary sacrifices that he made for his country under dire conditions. His sacrifices and those of hundreds of thousands of veterans like himself can never be fully appreciated. 4. Nonetheless, the applicant’s injury as indicated in the 21 December 2004 Board proceedings was determined to be accidental, not as a result of hostile action. In his current submission to this Board, he has provided no probative evidence or convincing argument to refute that determination. The applicant’s request for award of the Purple Heart is not warranted. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___TH __ ___JI ___ __CD___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2004105710, dated 21 December 2004. _____Thomas Howard______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001829 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20051103 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 107.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.