RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02381 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH). 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received enemy-related injuries as a result of a parachute 
evacuation from his aircraft during a bombing mission. The pilot 
was justifiably more focused on getting the crew from a hostile 
environment to safety rather than documenting award entitlements. 
First aid was administered to his face and knee at the crew 
recovery site; however, he did not see a doctor until reaching 
Kunming, China, some 33 days later. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of War 
Department correspondence, copies of an interview from the 
aircraft pilot, discharge documents, documents provided by the 
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), and documents from the 
Army Review Boards Agency as a result of his appeal. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Army Air Corps who served 
on active duty from 10 April 1943 to 10 January 1946. He served 
as an aerial gunner and was progressively promoted to the grade 
of staff sergeant. He served 2 years, 10 months, and 13 days on 
active duty with 10 months and 18 days of Foreign Service. 

 

In accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-45, Decorations, 
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 agent, sustained as 
the result of a hostile act of the enemy, 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. 

 

The applicant’s records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the 
NPRC. A reconstructed file was created by NPRC but contains 
minimal documentation. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. DPSIDRA states the PH is awarded 
for wounds received as a direct result of enemy actions, (i.e., 
gunshot or shrapnel wounds, hand-to-hand combat wounds, forced 
aircraft bailout injuries, etc.). In addition, it is necessary 
the wound required or received treatment by medical personnel. 
Indirect injuries do not meet the criteria for award of the PH. 
These include, but are not limited to, injuries received while 
seeking shelter from mortar or rocket attacks, aircraft bombings, 
grenades, and injuries incurred while serving as an aircraft 
member or in a passenger status because of the aircraft’s evasive 
measures against hostile fire, or for Post Traumatic Stress 
Disorder. 

 

DPSIDRA indicates that the applicant has not provided a detailed 
personal account, medical documentation verifying he received a 
wound as a direct result of enemy action that required medical 
treatment, and eye witness statement(s) to help support his 
claim. He has provided War Department memoranda to his family 
concerning his missing-in-action status over China on 12 July 
1945; however, this documentation does not confirm that he 
received an injury as a direct result of enemy action that 
required and received medical treatment. 

 

The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He does not have evidence, in the form of records, to submit as 
he believes his records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the 
National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, MO. He indicates 
that he can only provide a personal account of the injuries he 
sustained as a result of the forced bailout of his aircraft. He 
also contends that witness statements to support his claim are 
not possible as he cannot locate any of his crew members and he 
believes he may be the only surviving member of the incident. 


 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the 
applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that he has met his 
burden of establishing that his records should be corrected to 
reflect his entitlement to the Purple Heart. While it is 
unfortunate the applicant’s records were destroyed by fire at the 
NPRC in 1973 and the remaining crewmembers have since passed 
away, it is still the applicant’s burden to provide evidence of 
error or injustice. We note that although the applicant contends 
that he received enemy-related injuries as a result of a forced 
bailout and that he received first aid for his facial and knee 
injuries, he does not indicate they were incurred as a direct 
result of enemy action nor does he provide a detailed explanation 
of the circumstances surrounding how the injuries were incurred. 
The interview of the aircraft pilot is noted; however, it does 
not indicate the applicant, or any crewmember, was wounded as a 
direct result of enemy action. Moreover, we find no medical 
evidence that he ever received treatment for wounds, incurred as 
a direct result of enemy action or while engaged in action 
against the enemy. To the contrary, Item 34, Wounds Received in 
Action, of his Record of Service, reflects “No.” In view of this 
record and absent evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02381 in Executive Session on 2 February 2012 and 
9 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2011-02381: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 25 Oct 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair