RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           21 June 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007625


      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. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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, award of the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he received a shrapnel wound to
the leg as a result of an explosion from an enemy placed mine, but it was
not recorded as such.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Self-Authored Statement, Separation Document (WD AGO Form 53-
55) and Army Newsletter (Submarine Cable).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 25 March 1946.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
9 September 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 military records are not available to the Board for
review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records
at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the
applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there
were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board
to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  This case is being
considered using reconstructed records that primarily consist of the
applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55, Separation Qualification Record (WD AGO Form
100) and the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant.

4.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was inducted into the Army
and entered active duty on 28 December 1943, and that he continuously
served on active duty until being honorably separated on 25 March 1946.
This document also shows that he served in the Pacific Theater of
Operations (PTO) from 2 February 1945 through 1 March 1946, and that he
participated in the Luzon, New Guinea and Southern Philippines campaigns.
Item 6 (Organization) shows that his unit was Detachment X, 4025th Signal
Service Battalion,
1st Corps, and Item 30 (Military Occupational Specialty) shows he held the
military occupational specialty (MOS) 209 (Submarine Cable Station
Operator).

5.  Item 33 (Decorations and Awards) of the applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55
shows he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:
American Campaign Medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal, Army Good Conduct
Medal, Philippines Liberation Medal and World War II Victory Medal.  The PH
is not included in this list of authorized awards.  Item 34 (Wounds
Received In Action) contains the entries “None” and “Shrapnel Right Leg at
Close of Combat”.  On the date of his separation, 25 March 1946, the
applicant authenticated this separation document with his signature in Item
56 (Signature of Person Being Separated).

6.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in which he indicates
that in March or April 1945, he was riding a bulldozer that was clearing a
debris strewn terminal that had been abandoned by the Japanese.  He states
that the bulldozer struck a hidden mine and blew off the machine’s blade.
The shrapnel from this explosion struck his right leg and resulted in
lacerations from his ankle to his thigh.  He states that he was treated and
bandaged by a medical corpsman (Medic) and returned to duty.  He states
that the incident was recorded in the “Submarine Cable” of the Signal
Review, an Army Newsletter.  He claims the entry on his separation document
that indicates he received the wound at the close of combat is inconsistent
on face value because the incident occurred well before the Japanese
surrender in August 1945.

7.  The applicant also provides the “Submarine Cable” article he refers to
in his statement.  This article recounts the mine explosion caused by the
bulldozer clearing an area, but fails to indicate the applicant, or any
other Soldier was wounded during the incident.  Further, the specific date
of the incident is not recorded, although there is a reference to the teams
arriving in the area in
March 1945.

8.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim of entitlement to the PH and the supporting
evidence he provided were carefully considered.  However, by regulation, in
order to support award of the PH, there must be evidence a member was
wounded/injured in action, was treated for the wound/injury by military
medical personnel and a record of this medical treatment must have been
made a matter of official record.

2.  The veracity of the applicant’s claim that he received a shrapnel wound
to his right leg while serving in the PTO is not in question.  The Army
newsletter he provides, while confirming the bulldozer incident, does not
indicate the applicant, or any other Soldier was wounded as a result of
this explosion.  Absent specific evidence (eye-witness accounts, medical
treatment records etc) showing the shrapnel wound in question was the
direct result of, or caused by enemy action; or that the applicant was
treated for a combat related wound/injury, the regulatory burden of proof
necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case.
As a result, the applicant’s request for the PH must be denied in the
interest of all those who served during World War II and who faced similar
circumstances.

3.   Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 25 March 1946, the date of his
separation from active duty.  Based on the date the Board was established,
2 January 1947, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction
of any error or injustice expired on 1 January 1950.  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

___MKP_  ___PHM_  __LMD__  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.




            ____Margaret K. Patterson__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007625                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/06/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1946/03/25                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-365                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Demobilization                          |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  61   |107.0015                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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