MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 20 May 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003087073


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr.Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson
Ms. Deborah Jacobs		Member
Mr. Jose A. Martinez		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by showing he was awarded the Purple Heart (PH) and a meritorious unit award.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he provides a copy of a Compensation and Pension Exam Report (VA Form 2507), dated 11 July 2001, and a letter titled the Accomplishments of the Regiment, dated 17 June 1945, issued by the commander of the 1306^th Engineer General Service Regiment.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2002077201) on 31 October 2002. The documents submitted by the applicant for reconsideration are considered new evidence that requires the Board’s consideration.

The applicant served on active duty from 19 October 1943 through 9 January 1946, at which time he was honorably discharged, by reason of demobilization. At the time of his separation, he held the rank of technician fifth class (Tec 5).

The separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he served in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) with the 1306^th Engineer General Service Regiment, from
9 April 1944 through 22 December 1945. It also shows that he participated in four campaigns of World War II, and that during his tenure on active duty he earned the following awards: European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with 4 bronze service stars; Army Good Conduct Medal; and World War II Victory Medal. No other awards or decorations were included in this document.

Item 34 (Wounds Received in Action) of the applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 contains the entry “None”, which indicates that he was not wounded or injured in action during his tenure on active duty. The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person Being Separated), thereby verifying that the information contained therein was correct at the time the separation document was prepared and issued.

During its original review of this case, based on its review of the history of the applicant’s World War II unit during his assignment tenure, the Board found that he was entitled to receive the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp. Accordingly, the Board instructed officials of the ARBA Support Division,
St. Louis, to administratively correct the applicant’s separation document to add this award.

---

The VA Form 2507 provided by the applicant confirms that he was examined by a medical official of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on 11 July 2001. This form contains a list of seven impressions, which included the statement “multiple shrapnel wounds of the arms and right lateral orbit, healed without current complicating problems.” However, this report does not render a judgment or contain information in regard to whether the injury was combat related or incurred as a result of enemy action.

The unit commander’s letter documenting the accomplishments of the unit indicates that the War Department had issued plaques for meritorious service to company B, the applicant’s unit; however, no specifics on the type of award authorized or issued are given.

In its original consideration of the case, the Board found that there was no evidence, and the applicant failed to provide any, which confirmed that he was wounded as a result of hostile action during World War II. It also found no evidence that showed that he or his unit were ever awarded a meritorious award.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy and criteria concerning individual military awards. Paragraph 2-8 contains the regulatory guidance pertaining to awarding the PH. It states, in pertinent part, that in order to award a PH there must be evidence that a member was wounded or injured as a result of enemy action. The wound or injury for which the PH is being awarded must have required treatment by a medical officer, this treatment must be supported by medical treatment records that were made a matter of official record.

Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Campaign Participation Credit Register-World War II) establishes the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during World War II. It confirms that during his tenure of assignment with the unit, Company B, 1306^th Engineer Service Regiment, participated in the four campaigns for which he received credit, and in the occupation of Germany, for which the Army of Occupation Medal was authorized. This source publication confirms that the applicant’s unit was never awarded a Distinguished Unit Citation or Meritorious Unit Commendation during World War II.

---

DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the PH should be added to his record based on his being wounded in action during World War II. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim. By regulation, in order to support awarding a member the PH, it is necessary to establish that a member was wounded or injured in action, and that the would for which the PH is being awarded required medical treatment that was made a matter of official record.

2. Although the VA Form provided by the applicant indicates that the impression of a VA examining physician was that the applicant had suffered multiple shrapnel wounds of the arms and right lateral orbit, there was indication that these wounds were combat related or received as a result of enemy action during World War II.

3. The applicant’s WD AGO 53-55 contains an entry in Item 34 (Wounds Received in Action) that indicates he was never wounded or injured in action during his tenure on active duty. Further, the applicant authenticated this separation document with his signature on the date of his separation from active duty, thereby verifying that the information contained therein, to include the Item 34 entry, was correct on the date it was prepared and issued.

4. Lacking independent evidence verifying his entitlement to the PH, the Board is compelled to deny the applicant’s PH request. The Board does not question the veracity of the applicant’s claim of entitlement to the PH. This action is taken solely based on the lack of sufficient evidence to satisfy the regulatory burden of proof required to award the PH, in the interest of all those who served during World War II who faced similar circumstances.

5. The Board also considered the unit commander’s letter of accomplishments submitted by the applicant, which indicates his unit was awarded a plaque for meritorious service. However, this letter does not show that the unit was ever specifically awarded a Distinguished Unit Citation or Meritorious Unit Commendation. Further, the source publication for World War II unit awards confirms that his unit never received either of these awards for meritorious achievement or service.

6. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.


BOARD VOTE:

         DJ__ __MM___ __JM_ GRANT

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




         Carl W. S. Chun

Director, Army Board for Correction
         of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087073
SUFFIX
RECON	AR2002077201
DATE BOARDED	2003/05/20
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	Honorable
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1946/01/09
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-365
DISCHARGE REASON	Demobilization
BOARD DECISION
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 46	107.0000
2. 61	107.0015
3.
4.
5.
6.