RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:             DECEMBER 21, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:     AR2004104140


      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. Luis Almodova                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Semma E. Salter               |     |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, reconsideration of his earlier
appeal to correct his military records by awarding him the Purple Heart.

2.  The applicant has deferred to his counsel to present argument in
support of his request for award of the Purple Heart.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of page 31, part of an article entitled,
"The Purple Heart:  Separating Fact from Fiction," from the February 2004
edition of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Magazine, in support of his
request for reconsideration.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's earlier appeal for
award of the Purple Heart to him [the applicant].

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that it is his contention that since
President Reagan signed an Executive Order in 1984 expanding the award
criteria that his wound in a peacekeeping mission in Italy should meet the
criteria for award of the Purple Heart.

3.  Counsel provides, in effect, the extracted copy of the article referred
to in paragraph 3 above.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were
summarized, in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2001061900, on 23 October 2001, and in Docket Number AR2002072174, on 29
August 2002.

2.  The article submitted with the request for reconsideration, "The Purple
Heart:  Separating Fact from Fiction," copied from the February 2004
edition of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Magazine, contains new
information not previously reviewed by the Board.  It is new evidence;
therefore, the Board must consider it.
3.  Applicant's counsel, in his letter of appeal, stated that he was
submitting a copy of page 30 and 31, of the VFW Magazine, for the Board's
consideration; however, only page 31 was received.

4.  The full text of the above referenced article was downloaded from the
Internet so that its total content could be reviewed.  A copy of the
article has been added to these Proceedings as an enclosure.

5.  In a letter from applicant's counsel to the Board, dated 19 September
2002, which contested the decision arrived at by the Board on 5 September
2002, counsel stated that, "It should also be noted that his injury was
sustained during the conflict between Italy and Yugoslavia, which had
nothing to do with World War II."

6.  According to the article, The War Department changed its regulations in
1942 so that the Purple Heart was exclusively for wounds received from
enemy action.  Thus giving the Purple Heart its current status as a unique
decoration for combat wounds.

7.  In Myth 6 in the article, which reads as follows:  "The Purple Heart is
only for wounds received in actual combat.  Fact:  Since 1984, when
President Ronald Reagan signed an executive order expanding its award
criteria, the Purple Heart may be awarded to those killed and wounded in
peacekeeping operations, as well as terrorist attacks."

8.  AR 600-8-22, Paragraph 2-8 a.(7), states that the Purple Heart will be
awarded to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the
United States after 28 March 1973 (emphasis added) as a result of military
operations while serving outside the territory of the United States as part
of a peacekeeping force.

9.  According to an Encyclopedia Britannica Article, "United Nations
Peacekeeping Forces," international armed forces were first used in 1948
to observe cease-fire in Kashmir and Palestine.  Although not specifically
mentioned in the United Nations Charter, the use of international forces as
a buffer between warring parties pending troop withdrawal and negotiations
– a practice that became known as peacekeeping – was formalized in 1956
during the Suez Canal Crisis. (source:  www.Britannica.com/eb/article)
10.  Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the
Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile
action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound
was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment,
and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

11.  A peacekeeping force is defined as a military mission to act as a
third party between warring forces, enforcing a cease fire or other truce,
usually in support of political moves towards a lasting peace settlement.
(Source:  www.Army-Technology.com)

12.  At the time the applicant alleges to have been wounded, in December
1945, the Armed Forces of the United States were an occupying force in
Italy.  The Army of Occupation Medal was awarded to Soldiers who served
there during the period between 9 May 1945 and 15 September 1947.  The
applicant was awarded the Army of Occupation Medal for his service in post-
war Italy.

13.  A paragraph in the DVA decision submitted by the applicant and
considered by the Board on 29 August 2002, in Docket Number AR2002072174,
states, "Service medical records for the period 05-16-45 to 01-07-47 are
negative for treatment of a gunshot wound.  These records do show that the
veteran drove all types of military vehicles in the Mediterranean Theater
during World War II.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is insufficient evidence in the applicant's available service
records to support his contentions that he was wounded while he was
stationed in post-World War II Italy, that he received medical treatment,
and that the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.

2.  According to an earlier submitted document, the DVA Rating Decision,
dated 20 November 2001, the applicant was injured in Italy as he was
standing beside his jeep and there were two shots fired, one of which
struck his left calf.

3.  According to counsel, the applicant was wounded while on a peacekeeping
mission in Italy and therefore, he should meet the criteria for award of
the Purple Heart.

4.  The practice of using international forces identified as "peacekeeping"
forces, under the control and direction of the United Nations, was not
formalized until 1956.

5.  By counsel's admission, there was conflict between the governments of
Yugoslavia and Italy.  The United States was not involved in this conflict
nor was it a "peacekeeper."  United States Forces were victorious over the
Axis Forces, which included Italy and were there as an occupying force
following the cessation of hostilities in Europe.  The Army Occupation
Medal was awarded to Soldiers who were stationed in post-World War II
Italy.

6.  On the date that the applicant was allegedly wounded by gunfire,
neither Italy nor Yugoslavia were the enemy of the United States.

7.  The War Department changed its regulations in 1942 so that the Purple
Heart was exclusively for wounds received from enemy action.  Thus the
Purple Heart was given its current status as a unique decoration for combat
wounds.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

fe  _____  ses _____  pms_____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2002072174, dated 29 August 2002,
and in Docket Number AR2001061900, dated 23 October 2001.




            _____Fred Eichorn____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004104140                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041221                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.  65                  |107.0015                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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