RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           10 May 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040005546


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Antonio Uribe                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his record be corrected to
reflect that he was wounded in action and award of the Purple Heart (PH).


2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while serving in Korea, he
received a shrapnel wound from incoming enemy mortar rounds.  He claims
that this incident was never entered into his military record, as it should
have been.  As a result, he was never awarded the PH.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 31 October 1969.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
29 July 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record confirms that he was initially inducted into the
Army and entered active duty on 25 August 1943.  On 23 November 1945, he
was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  The
separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) he was issued at the time confirms
he received the following awards during this period of active duty service:
 Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, American Theater Campaign Medal,
Philippine Liberation Medal and World War II Victory Medal.  Item 34
(Wounds Received In Action) contains the entry “None” and the applicant
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 56 (Signature of
Person Being Separated).

4.  On 24 November 1945, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army and
remained on active duty.  His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)
contains a Service Record (WD AGO Form 24) that documents his active duty
service between 25 November 1945 and 2 November 1951.

5.  The WD AGO Form 24 on file confirms the applicant served in Korea from
17 September 1950 through 18 October 1951.  It further shows that during
his Korea tour, he was assigned to Battery A, 96th Field Artillery
Battalion.  There is no indication in the Service Record that the applicant
was ever wounded in action, or that he was recommended for, or awarded the
PH.

6.  On 2 November 1951, the applicant was honorably separated.  The
separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time shows, in
Item 27 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign
Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), that he earned the Army of Occupation Medal
and Korean Service Medal with 5 bronze service stars during this period of
active duty service.  Item 29 (Wounds Received as a Result of Enemy Action)
contains the entry “None”.  The applicant authenticated this document with
his signature in Item 48 (Signature of Person Being Separated) on the date
of his separation.

7.  On 3 November 1951, he reenlisted and continued to serve on active duty
until being honorably released from active duty for the purpose of length
of service retirement on 31 August 1969.  At the time, he held the rank of
sergeant first class (SFC) and he had completed a total of 26 years and 3
days of active military service.

8.  The applicant’s OMPF contains no documents that indicate the applicant
was ever wounded/injured in action, that he was treated for a combat
related wound/injury by military medical personnel, or that he was ever
recommended for, or awarded the PH.

9.  The OMPF contains a Report of Medical Examination (SF 88) completed on
the applicant on 9 July 1969.  This document cleared the applicant for
duty/separation and contained no indication that the applicant had ever
been wounded in action.

10.  The final DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of REFRAD
for retirement, 31 August 1969, shows that he earned the National Defense
Service Medal with 1st Oak Leaf Cluster and Army Good Conduct Medal (4th
Award) during that period of active duty service.  The applicant
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of
Person Being Transferred or Discharged).

11.  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 the PH is awarded to any member who has been wounded or killed
in action. A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an
outside force or agent sustained under conditions defined by this
regulation.  In order to support awarding a member the PH, it is necessary
to establish that the wound, for which the award is being made, required
treatment by a medical officer.  This treatment must be supported by
records of medical treatment for the wound or injury received in action,
and must have been made a matter of official record.

12.  On 20 August 1999, the Department of Defense approved acceptance and
wear of the Korean War Service Medal (KWSM) to eligible US veterans of the
Korean War, or their surviving next of kin.  Responsibility for
distribution of the KWSM was given to the Department of the Air Force.  In
order to apply, the applicant should submit a copy of his DD Form 214 to
the Awards and Decorations Section, Headquarters, Air Force Personnel
Center, 550 C Street West, Suite 12, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 78150-
4714.  Once the Korean War Service Medal has been authorized by the
Department of the Air Force, the applicant may apply to this Board to add
this foreign award to his DD Form 214.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that his records be corrected to show he was
wounded/injured  in action in Korea in 1951, and that he be awarded the PH
was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to
support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record contains no indication that the applicant was
ever wounded/injured in action while serving in Korea.  Further, there is
no evidence showing that he was ever treated for a combat related
wound/injury throughout his military career.

3.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on 2 November 1951, right after
he completed his combat tour in Korea, contains an entry confirming that he
had not been wounded/injured in action during the period of active duty
service covered by the separation document.
4.  The applicant authenticated his 2 November 1951 DD Form 214 with his
signature.  In effect, this served as his verification that the information
contained on the DD Form 214, to include the Item 29 entry, was correct at
the time the document was prepared and issued.  As a result, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to correct his record to show he was
wounded/injured in action while serving in Korea in 1951.

5.  Further, by regulation, in order to support award of the PH, there must
be evidence confirming the member received a wound/injury as a direct
result of, or that was caused by enemy action.  There must also be evidence
confirming the member was treated for a combat related wound/injury by
military medical personnel and this treatment must have been made a matter
of official record.

6.  The applicant’s record contains no indication that he was ever
wounded/injured in action, or that he was treated for a combat-related
wound/injury.   Further, his OMPF is void of any orders, or other
documents, that show he was ever recommended for, or awarded the PH.
Therefore, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the
PH has not been satisfied in this case.

7.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 August 1969.  Therefore, the time
for him file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
20 August 1972.  However, he failed to file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___BPI__  ___AU __  ___JLP __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____Jennifer L. Prater______
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005546                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/05/10                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1969/08/31                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Retirement                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000                                |
|2.  61                  |107.0015                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]