| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely . | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for award of the Purple Heart (PH).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he provides an affidavit from a third party individual who states that he served on the same gun crew as the applicant in Germany during World War II. He claims that the affidavit will show he suffered injuries to his ears as a result of enemy action.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in ABCMR Proceedings (AR2002076385), dated 21 November 2002, which were prepared to reflect the Board’s original consideration of this case.
The applicant submits an affidavit in support of his reconsideration request. The affidavit is provided by a member of the applicant’s unit who comments that the applicant was seen by the medics on several occasions for trouble with ears. However, this affidavit gives no indication that the ear trouble experienced by the applicant was the result of combat action, and there are no medical records available that verify the medical treatment alluded to in the third party statement.
On 21 November 2002, this Board concluded that the evidence of record and the applicant failed to provide evidence to show he was wounded or treated for wounds due to hostile action. The Board determined that there was insufficient evidence on which to base award of the PH.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards. Paragraph 2-8 contains guidance on awarding the PH. It states, in pertinent part, that the PH is authorized to members who are wounded in action. A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained in action. The wound for which a PH is being awarded must have required treatment by a medical officer, and the records of medical treatment for the wound or injury for which the PH is being awarded must have been made a matter of official record.
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 carefully considered the new evidence submitted by the applicant and notes his contention that he should be awarded the PH for the ear injury he suffered. However, it finds the evidence provided does not satisfy the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH.
2. The new evidence provided by the applicant provides evidence that he suffered from ear problems. However, it does not confirm that the applicant’s medical problems were combat related. The fact that the affidavit was rendered many years after the fact, and is not corroborated with any official medical records or documented evidence in the available military files, tends to diminish its evidentiary value.
3. The applicant is advised that the veracity of his claim that he suffered from ear problems is not in question. However, the evidence he now provides is not sufficient to alter the original findings of the Board. This decision is based solely on the lack of evidence showing that he was ever wounded or injured in action, and it is taken in the interest of all those who served during World War II and who faced similar circumstances.
4. If the applicant’s claim that he was treated for his ear injury by military medical personnel at the time is true, the Board finds it likely that had this injury been combat related and satisfied the regulatory criteria for award of the PH, the applicant would have been recommended for and awarded the PH at the time. Thus, while the Board commends the applicant on World War II service, it finds an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested PH in this case.
5. In view of the facts of this case, the Board concludes that the overall merits of the case, including the latest submission and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision. Therefore, it finds 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:
________ __________ GRANT
________ __________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__TBR _KH_ __AO _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR200308766 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 61 | 107.0015 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074976C070403
The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. By regulation, in order to support awarding the PH necessary to establish that a member was wounded or injured in action, the wound or injury required treatment, and this treatment was made a matter of official record. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the applicant the Purple Heart for wounds received on 22 January 1944, in the vicinity of Mignano, Italy,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084695C070212
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. The FSM’s military records were not available to the Board for review. However, the Board does find the information provided in the OTSG admission record, coupled with the VA medical documents provided by counsel are sufficiently credible to support the FSM’s entitlement to the PH, when coupled with the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090535C070212
The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. Paragraph 2-8f of the awards regulation states that for those who became Prisoners of War after 25 April 1962, the PH will be awarded to individuals wounded while prisoners of foreign forces, upon submission by the individual to the Department of the Army of an affidavit that is supported by a statement from a witness, if this is possible. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award the applicant the PH, for being...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085234C070212
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. The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review. However, based on the lack of records and evidence to show that his condition was a qualifying wound or injury that entitled him to the PH, the Board is regrettably compelled to deny the applicant’s PH request.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069938C070402
It states, in pertinent part, that the PH is awarded to any member who has been wounded or killed in action. Therefore, the Board is compelled to deny the requested relief in the interest of fairness to all those who served in World War II and who face similar circumstances. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the Bronze Star Medal for his exemplary conduct in ground combat during World War II, and the first...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050014269
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 March 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050014269 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. Records show that the alleged error or injustice related to award of the PH now under consideration should have been discovered on 21 June 1946, the date of the FSM's separation. Therefore, the Board requests that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000139C070208
The applicant states, in effect, that he is entitled to award of the PH for injuries he received as a result of enemy action on or about 15 September 1943. It states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member participated in while serving in the ETO. Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show that based on his World War II service and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013239C071029
The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board for review. Paragraph 3-13d (2) of the awards regulation states, in effect, that the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) is authorized to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who, after 6 December 1941, were cited in orders or awarded a certificate for exemplary conduct in ground combat against an armed enemy between 7 December 1941 and 2 September 1945. Absent any evidence confirming that he was wounded in action, that he was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003292C070206
The separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) issued to the applicant at the completion of his World War II service shows he was inducted into the Army and entered active duty on 5 June 1944. While the veracity of the applicant’s claim that he received a gunshot wound to his leg as a direct result of enemy action during World War II, and of the information contained in the third-party statement from his former commanding office is not in question, absent any evidence of record to corroborate...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013152C080407
During its original review of the case, the Board found no evidence of record to corroborate his claim that he had been wounded in action while being taken as a POW, that treated for a combat related wound or injury, or that he had ever been recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority during his World War II active duty service. By regulation, in order to support award of the PH there must be evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a result of...