RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01937
            INDEX CODE:  107.00
            COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) medal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been awarded the PH for an eye injury he received during
a mission over Germany.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of  his  Department
of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision, dated 27 Feb 08, a copy of DD Form
256, Honorable Discharge, and a statement from a former crew member.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 23 Feb 43,  and  served
as a Flight Maintenance Gunner.  He was released from active duty on 31
Oct 45.

His record reflects award of the Air Medal (AM) w/2 Oak  Leaf  Clusters
(OLCs), the European-African-Middle Eastern  Campaign  Medal,  and  the
Aerial Gunner Badge.  He served in the Ardennes and Rhineland  and  the
Central Europe Campaigns.

On 31 Oct 02, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel  Council  denied
his request for award of the Distinguished Flying  Cross,  and  instead
approved  award  of  an  AM.   On  15  Nov   02,   his   records   were
administratively  corrected  to  reflect  award  of  the  AM  and   his
separation date on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty, was corrected to reflect a separation date of 31  Oct
45.

On 6 Dec 04 his records  were  administratively  corrected  to  reflect
award of the AM w/3 OLCs, and that his net active service was  2 years,
8 months and 9 days, rather than 9 years, 8 months, and 9 days and that
he served 8 months and 10 days, rather than 3 months, and  10  days  of
foreign service.

In accordance with Army regulations (AR) 600-45, Decorations, dated  22
Sep 43, during the period in question, the PH was  awarded  for  wounds
received in action against an enemy of  the  United  States,  or  as  a
direct result of an act of such enemy, provided such wound necessitated
treatment by a medical officer.  For the purpose of awarding the PH,  a
wound was defined as an injury to any part of the body from an  outside
force, element, or while in action in the face of the  enemy.   When  a
person eligible for award of the  PH  was  treated  for  a  wound,  the
commanding officer of the hospital, or the medical officer who  treated
the wound, furnished the commanding officer of  the  wounded  person  a
certificate briefly describing the nature of the wound, and  certifying
the  necessity  of  treatment.   In  addition,  a   wounded   soldier’s
unsupported statement could  be  accepted  in  unusual  or  extenuating
circumstances when, in the opinion of the officer making the award,  no
corroborative evidence was obtainable.  However, the statement would be
substantiated if possible.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDR  recommends  denial  and  states,  in  part,  that  without
verification of the applicant’s injury being  caused  by  direct  enemy
action, they recommend disapproval for award of the PH.

His previously submitted eyewitness statement does  not  state  he  was
injured due to direct enemy action.  Official documentation located  in
his records states he  reported  defective  vision  since  an  airplane
accident in Feb 45.  Further, his Report of  Physical  Examination  and
Induction, states on question 5: Physical or mental defects of disease:
left eye, slight vision lost.

On 19 Aug 05, his request for the PH, which was submitted  through  his
Congressman’s office, was denied by the PHRB.

The DPSIDR evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A former crew member provides  a  statement  indicating  the  applicant
received an injury to his left eye when a small piece of flak  hit  and
exploded one of the pistol shells stored in the turret.  The  applicant
was taken to the hospital after they landed, where he was  treated  and
cleared to fly the next mission.  He can think of no other way that the
pistol shell could have

exploded, except that it was hit by anti-aircraft  fire.   He  believes
the applicant earned a PH on that mission.

The former crewmember’s letter 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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case;  however,
evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that his
injuries were the direct result of enemy action.  In this  regard,  the
Board  notes  the  applicant’s  WD AGO  Form  38,  Report  of  Physical
Examination of Enlisted Personnel  Prior  to  Discharge,  Release  from
Active Duty or Retirement, dated  30  Oct  45,  reflects  that  he  was
injured during an aircraft accident in Feb 45 and was not hospitalized.
 While the Board recognizes  the  statements  of  another  crew  member
provided by the applicant, and his assumption that  the  applicant  may
have been injured when flak hit and exploded  a  shell  stored  in  the
turret, we are not persuaded by the evidence of record that  denial  of
the Purple Heart Medal constitutes  an  error  or  injustice.   In  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did   not
demonstrate the existence of a material error or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a  personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence no considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2008-
01937 in Executive Session on 6 Nov 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-
01937 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 May 08, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 29 Jul 08.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 08.
      Exhibit.E. Letter, Mr. Hutchison, dated 14 Sep 08.




      LAURENCE M. GRONER
      Panel Chair