PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 31 JULY 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001053289


         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. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson
Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

---

2. The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that his records be corrected to reflect award of two Purple Hearts. He states, in effect, that he was wounded on two separate occasions during the Korean War and that under today’s standards he would have received an honorable discharge. He notes that he “wanted to go overseas to fight for [his] country, but was held back” and as a result he “went AWOL” (absent without leave) and was ultimately “sent overseas.” In support of his request he submits a self-authored statement in which he details his two combat wounds but does not elaborate on his AWOL time or the basis for upgrading his discharge, other than citing “current standard[s].”

3. The applicant’s military records were apparently lost or destroyed during the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. Information contained herein was reconstructed from alternative sources, including information contained in copies of his service medical records.

4. The applicant served an initial period of active military service with the United States Navy between January 1946 and August 1946. On 22 June 1950 he enlisted for a period of 3 years and entered active duty with the Army.

5. His service medical records confirm he was wounded on 12 July 1952 by enemy mortar fire and again on 17 September 1952 “due to explosion of land mine.” His 12 July 1952 wound is confirmed in item 29 (wounds received as a result of action with enemy forces) and one of his hospital admission records indicates he was awarded the Purple Heart. The award, however, is not recorded on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), nor are there any orders in available records which confirm the decoration. The medical records indicate the applicant was serving in pay grade E-3 at the time of his wounds.

6. On 6 August 1953, 12 days after his scheduled separation date (ETS) he was discharged under honorable conditions and issued a general discharge certificate. His separation report notes that he was retained in the service for 12 days for the convenience of the government and that he had 34 days of lost time. The authority for his separation, recorded in block 8 (reason and authority for separation) is recorded as Army Regulation 615-350 ETS. The separation report indicates the applicant served overseas for almost 15 months between 1950 and 1953 where he was awarded the Korean and United Nations Service Medals. At the time of his separation he was serving in the grade of E-1 with a date of rank of 28 April 1953.

7. The applicant served an additional period of active duty between January and June 1955 when he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-205 for the convenience of the Government.

8. Subsequent to his separation, in 1987, he was authorized the administrative issuance of two Purple Hearts, an Army Good Conduct Medal and the National Defense Service Medal by officials at the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) in St. Louis. There is, however, no indication that the Purple Hearts or the Good Conduct Medal were confirmed in orders or added to his 1953 DD Form 214. The National Defense Service Medal was recorded on his 1955 DD Form 214.

9. Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for wounds sustained as a result of hostile action. Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

10. Army Regulation 615-360, in effect at the time, established the policies and provisions for the issuance of discharge certificates. It stated that because the type of discharge may significantly influence the individual’s civilian rights and eligibility for benefits provided by law, it was essential that all pertinent factors be considered so that the type of discharge will reflect accurately the nature of service rendered. It was the policy of the Department of the Army at the time to base evaluation of an individual's service and character on his over-all enlistment period rather than on any disqualifying entries in his service record during a particular portion of his current service. The regulation specifically noted that “the effects of an honorable discharge and a general discharge are identical and entitle an individual so discharged to full rights and benefits.” An honorable discharge was issued when the character ratings of a soldier were “at least very good”, his efficiency ratings were “at least excellent”, and he had not been convicted by a general court-martial, or had not been convicted more than once by a special court-martial. It also noted that regardless of an individual’s previous record, an individual who received a decoration or award could receive an honorable characterization of service, providing his record subsequent to the act for which he was decorated would so entitle him to an honorable discharge. Additionally, the regulation stated that when it was apparent that furnishing a general discharge was not warranted, an honorable discharge could be furnished and gave an example of an individual who may have had disqualifying ratings but was favorably considered for the Good Conduct Medal.

11. Today, Army Regulation 635-200 establishes the policies and provisions for the issuance of various discharge certificates. It states that a soldier being separated upon his ETS or fulfillment of service obligation will be awarded a character of service of honorable unless an entry-level characterization is authorized.



CONCLUSIONS:

1. The lack of more definitive records make it impossible to determine when the applicant was AWOL, whether he was convicted by a court-martial, and whether his 34 days of lost time included AWOL and confinement or just AWOL. What is evident is that he did have 34 days of lost time, that he was serving in pay grade E-3 at the time he sustained his combat wounds in 1952, and, based on his April 1953 date of rank for pay grade E-1, was apparently reduced in grade prior to his discharge. While officials at the ARPERCEN authorized the issuance of a Good Conduct Medal in 1987 there is no evidence he was awarded such a decoration prior to his 1953 separation.

2. It is also apparent that the applicant’s separation authority determined, in spite of the applicant’s combat experience and wounds, that a general discharge most appropriately characterized the applicant’s service. That determination was well within the separation’s authority at that time. The applicant’s wounds were incurred prior to his reduction in grade. The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded solely because soldiers who serve until their ETS today receive honorable discharges is without foundation. One could argue that today a soldier with 34 days of lost time and a reduction in grade might more likely face administrative separation action for patterns of misconduct and receive an undesirable discharge than a soldier serving during the applicant’s period of military service. There is nothing which mandates that today’s standards be retroactively applied. As such the Board concludes that in the absence of compelling evidence that an error or injustice occurred in the applicant’s characterization of service it would be inappropriate for the Board to substitute its judgement for that of the commander on the ground at the time who acted well within his authority. The Board notes that the applicant’s character of service does not deny him any veteran benefits.

3. However, there is clear evidence that the applicant was wounded as a result of hostile action on two separate occasions during the Korean War and as such is entitled to two awards of the Purple Heart (12 July and 17 September 1952) and his records should be corrected accordingly.

4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned two Purple Hearts for wounds sustained as a result of hostile action during the Korean War (12 July and
17 September 1952).

2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

__WTM__ __AAO__ __JTM __ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ___Walter T. Morrison _
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053289
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20010731
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	107.00
2.	110.00
3.
4.
5.
6.