RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00189
            INDEX CODE:  107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 JULY 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His father be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His father was wounded twice while serving with the Army Air  Corps  in  the
Asia Pacific Theater during World War II.   As  a  result  of  the  injuries
sustained, he was entitled to receive the PH, but it was  never  awarded  to
him.  In 1999, he again requested this  recognition;  however,  the  process
was not completed.  His family desires to complete this effort to honor  his
father’s memory.

The wounds sustained were real and his father  recounted  the  circumstances
and dates of the incidents.  The absence  of  an  official  paper  trail  is
understandable given the volatility of the circumstances at the time of  the
incidents and the passage of time.  The recognition  requested  he  believes
is reasonable and justified.   He  and  the  rest  of  his  family,  believe
bureaucracy should not impede or  preclude  this  honor  being  posthumously
granted.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The servicemember enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 28 April 1943.

The servicemember’s WD AGO Form 53-55 indicates he  received  the  following
decorations  and  citations:   American  Theater   Ribbon,   Asiatic-Pacific
Theater Ribbon with three Bronze Stars, Philippine  Liberation  Ribbon  with
one Bronze Star, Good Conduct Medal, and the Victory Medal World War II.

The servicemember’s WD AGO Form  53-55  -  Enlisted  Record  and  Report  of
Separation - Honorable Discharge, Item 34, indicates no wounds  received  in
action.

On 16 December 1945, the  servicemember  was  honorably  discharged  in  the
grade of corporal under the provisions of AR 615-365 RR 1-1 (Convenience  of
the Government/Demobilization).  He served 2 years, 7 months,  and  19  days
of total active duty service.

A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 12 March  1999,
indicates  the  issue  before  the  VA  was  an  evaluation   of   residuals
schistosomiasis  and  dengue  fever  that  was  evaluated  as  zero  percent
disabling.  It was increased to 10 percent disabling  effective  4  November
1998.  An evaluation of 10  percent  was  assigned  for  demonstrable  liver
damage  with  mild  gastrointestinal  disturbance.   The   rating   decision
indicated a higher evaluation of 30 percent was  not  warranted  unless  the
record showed minimal liver damage with  associated  fatigue,  anxiety,  and
gastrointestinal  disturbance   of   lesser   degree   and   frequency   but
necessitating  dietary  restriction  or  other  therapeutic  measures.   The
report  further  indicated  a   rating   for   the   following:    Residuals
Schistosomiasis and Dengue Fever - 0% from 1  April  1946  and  10%  from  4
November 1998; Mild Strain, Right Foot, Residuals March Fracture - 10%  from
1 April 1946; Muscle Strain, Right Groin, Muscle  Group  XV  -  10%  from  1
April 1946; and Non-Service Connected (NSC) from World War II  Right  Common
Peroneal Nerve  Palsy  with  Drop  Foot  and  Right  Inguinal  Hernia.   His
combined compensable rating was  20%  from  1 April  1946  and  30%  from  4
November 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial indicating to be  awarded  the  PH,  a  member
must provide documentation to support he was wounded as a direct  result  of
enemy action and must have received medical treatment by medical  personnel.
 The applicant wrote a letter  stating  how  the  injuries  were  sustained;
however,  it   does   not   include   eyewitness   statements   or   medical
documentation.  The servicemember’s separation documents  states  “None”  in
the wounds received in action area.

There is no evidence in the servicemember’s  medical  or  personnel  records
indicating he had been injured as a direct  result  of  enemy  action.   The
injuries he writes about were not sustained as a result of enemy action  and
do not meet the criteria of this prestigious award.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and  indicated  the  advisory  opinion
failed to respond at all to the second account of  an  injury  sustained  by
his father that took place in route from Biak to Leyte on 19  November  1944
when the ship was attacked by Japanese aircraft.

The injuries sustained by his father on both occasions were attended  to  by
military medical personnel as stated in his  father’s  letter.   His  father
only recalled the name of one captain, who treated  him  on  Leyte  for  the
injuries sustained on 19 November 1944.

The only documentation available to him to support his father’s  wounds  and
the  medical  treatment  provided  is  his  father’s  letter.   He  has   no
possibility of obtaining eyewitness  statements  60  plus  years  after  the
incidents took place.  Medical documentation, while no  doubt  made  at  the
time, may or may not be available through official channels today.

The advisory concludes that the injuries were not sustained as a  result  of
enemy action and does not meet the criteria of this prestigious  award.   If
there is information to boldly make this conclusion, he requests  that  this
information be shared with him so that he and the rest  of  his  family  can
come to peace on this issue.

If, on the other hand, this  conclusion  had  been  reached  with  only  the
information available, he feels that the  advisory  opinion  is  strictly  a
subjective opinion and should be weighed as such.

His father did not seek this award at the time of his injuries,  nor  during
the subsequent years during his  life  until  requested  to  do  so  by  his
family.  He like many other men and women selflessly served this country  to
keep it free for all of us.

The applicant’s response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an  injustice.   The  applicant’s  contentions  are
duly noted; however, after thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s  submission,
the majority of the Board is  not  persuaded  the  servicemember  should  be
awarded the Purple Heart Medal.  The PH is awarded for wounds received as  a
direct result of enemy action  and  the  servicemember  must  have  received
medical treatment by medical personnel.  The majority  of  the  Board  notes
there is no indication in the servicemember’s military personnel records  or
service  medical  records  to  substantiate  he  was  injured  and  received
treatment for any  injuries  as  a  direct  result  of  enemy  action.   The
personal sacrifice the servicemember endured for his country  is  noted  and
our decision in no way diminishes the high regard we have for  his  service;
however, insufficient documentary evidence has  been  presented  to  warrant
awarding him the Purple Heart.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, the majority  of  the  Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
00189 in Executive Session on 17 May 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended to deny the  applicant’s  request.
Mr. Long voted to approve the applicant’s  request  and  does  not  wish  to
submit  a  Minority  Report.   The  following   documentary   evidence   was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 December 2004, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 17 March 2005.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 March 2005.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 April 2005, w/atch.




                 LAURENCE M. GRONER
                 Panel Chair












AFBCMR BC-2005-00189





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found the applicant had
not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the
case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency