RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           21 June 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007892


      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, that his deceased father, a former
service member (FSM), be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his father received a wound to
the hand as a result of German shell fire.  The applicant further states
that his father served the country well and is entitled to the PH.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a certificate from an unknown
unofficial organization and a newspaper article extract in support of the
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 21 April 1919.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
13 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 FSM’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 FSM’s
records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  This case is being considered

using reconstructed records that primarily consist of a true copy of the
FSM’s honorable discharge certificate, which was prepared by a Clerk of the
Court in the State of Minnesota on 26 January 1920; and a Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Veteran Identification Data Sheet, which confirms the
FSM died on
26 December 1960.

4.  The true copy of the FSM’s discharge certificate shows he entered the
Army and active duty on 25 June 1918.  It also shows that he continuously
served on active duty until being honorably separated on 21 April 1919.
This document also indicates he held the rank of private first class on the
date of his separation, and that he was in good physical condition at the
time.  It also confirms he was not wounded during his military service
tenure.  This true copy also shows the FSM authenticated his separation
document with his signature on the date he was released from active duty.

5.  The applicant provides a copy of a certificate from an unofficial
organization that indicated the FSM was wounded in action.  He also
provides a newspaper article extract that refers to a letter from the FSM
to his brother, in which the FSM indicated he received a slight wound when
a German shell hit 10 feet from him.

6.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the FSM was wounded in action and the
supporting documents he provided were carefully considered.  However, there
is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief at this
late date.
2.  By regulation, in order to support award of the PH, there must be
evidence that a member received a wound/injury as a direct result of, or
that was caused by enemy action.  Further, there must be evidence showing
the member was treated for a combat related wound/injury by military
medical personnel and a record of this medical treatment must have been
made a matter of official record.

3.  The available evidence includes only a true copy of the FSM’s
separation document that was issued by the State of Minnesota on 26 January
1920.  This document contains the entry “None” in the block identified as
(Wounds Received In Service), which indicates the FSM was never wounded in
action during his tenure on active duty.  It also indicates the FSM
authenticated his separation document with his signature.  This would have
been his verification that the information contained on the separation
document, to include the “None” entry related to wounds received in
service, was correct at the time the separation document was prepared and
issued.

4.  Further, there is no indication that the FSM claimed entitlement to the
PH at the time of his separation, or in the more than 40 years that passed
between the date of his separation and the date of his death.

5.  In view of the facts of this case, the regulatory burden of proof
necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case.
As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support awarding
the FSM the PH at this late date.

6.  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.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 26 December 1960, the date of the
FSM’s death.  Therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 25 December 1963.  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_  ___PKM_  ___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                 |AR20040007892                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/06/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1919/04/21                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |WD Tel Nov 15.1918 and Letter Nov       |
|                        |30,1918.                                |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Hon Discharge Unknown                   |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  61   |107.0015                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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