RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03018 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was injured in the line of duty. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability compensation 
decision letters and other documentation in support of his 
application. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire 
at the National Personnel Records Center; therefore, only a 
limited record exists. According to the applicant’s available 
records, he served on active duty from 25 Jun 43 to 19 Oct 45 
and was credited with 8 months and 13 days of Foreign Service. 

 

In accordance with Army Regulation (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 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. 

 

On 13 Sep 11, AFPC/DPSIDRA notified the applicant they were able 
to verify his entitlement to the American Campaign Medal (ACM) 
and the World War II Victory Medal (WWIIVM) and his records will 
be updated accordingly. 

 

The applicant’s WD AGO 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of 
Separation Honorable Discharge, box 34, Wounds Received in 
Action is annotated as “none.” 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. The applicant provided an 
interrogation sheet dated 2 Dec 45, which states he received 
injuries with the type of injury being “glass in ass.” There is 
no indication the cause of the injury was a direct result of 
enemy action. 

 

Additionally, the applicant has not provided a detailed personal 
account, eyewitness statement or medical documentation from the 
date/timeframe of injury showing that he received an injury due 
to direct enemy action that required medical treatment. 

 

The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Upon being discharged and classified as non-wounded, he assumed 
this was correct. After becoming a member of the Second 
Bombardment Association he read about a book that was written by 
a former member of his unit. He ordered the book and learned he 
had been injured, so he decided to do some research on his own. 

 

He located the archived records from the Second Bombardment 
mission on 13 Feb 45. The interrogation sheet reflects the type 
of injuries as “glass in ass.” However, there is no glass on 
the B-17 bomber. His wound was caused by German “flak” and not 
“glass in the ass.” The vibration of the plane alone would have 
shattered glass. Then you add the vibration of a 50 caliber 
machine gun and you have intense vibration. 

 

The applicant states that whoever made that entry was not 
knowledgeable of the structured design regarding a B-17. In 
addition, the personnel within the Air Force Recognition 
Programs office have no knowledge of the B-17 design, 


especially, if their reason for disapproval is based on “glass 
in ass.” He states back in those days it was a “joke” if you 
sustained an injury in the butt because it was considered the 
lease vulnerable part of the body. 

 

After returning from the mission, he was informed by a flight 
line medic his wound was not serious and he needed to go with 
his crew to interrogation, and then go to the infirmary shack. 
After arriving at the infirmary, he cannot remember if his name 
or serial number was ever taken. However, he does remember 
being “checked out” and given medication to apply to his wound. 

 

The modern day computerized world cannot comprehend the 
haphazard record keeping back in those days. Zero priority; as 
personnel back then could cared less; they would just fill in 
the blanks with anything. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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. After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and his response to 
the Air Force evaluation, we are not persuaded that he has been 
the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s 
contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing the PH 
criteria in effect at the time and considering the documentation 
submitted by the applicant, we are not persuaded that his injury 
was the direct result of enemy action or incurred while in 
action against the enemy, as evidenced by the fact that in Block 
34, “Wounds Received in Action” on the WD AGO 53-55, Enlisted 
Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge, issued in 
conjunction with his 19 Oct 45 separation, reflects “none.” The 
personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is 
noted; however, insufficient documentary evidence has been 
presented to substantiate that he has a qualifying injury that 
warrants entitlement to the PH. 

 

In the absence of 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 
that 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 Docket Number BC-
2011-03018 in Executive Session on 29 Mar 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-03018 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Military Records. 

 Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSIDRA, Letter, dated 13 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 21 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Applicant’s Letter, dated 29 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair