RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        DECEMBER 21, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004105631


      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 states that he did not agree with the decision that was
made pertinent to his request for award of the Purple Heart.  The VA
(Department of Veterans Affairs) used the same evidence and that agency
recognized his service-connected disabilities.  The applicant adds, in
effect, that when he was released from active duty, he refused to let any
wound be on his record and that is why he decided to ask for award of the
Purple Heart now.  He feels that if his request had been submitted sooner
that the outcome would have been different.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of page one and two of a rating decision
made by the VA on 22 January 2003 in which he was granted a zero percent
disability rating for scar residuals to his right hand and to his lower
back which were believed to have been caused by shrapnel.

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
AR2002080193, on 25 March 2003.

2.  The rating decision submitted with the request for reconsideration, is
new information which was not previously reviewed by the Board.  It is new
evidence; therefore, the Board must consider it.

3.  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.

4.  The VA decision document contains two paragraphs stating that the
applicant's service medical records show no evidence of treatment for the
claimed condition (wounds received in action during World War II).
However, a noncompensable service-connected disability rating decision was
made based
on the applicant having been awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and based
on a statement made by a comrade alleging that the applicant was wounded
during his service.

5.  The VA decisional document shows that the applicant was evaluated for
wounds allegedly sustained to the right hand and to the lower back
(emphasis added).

6.  The applicant's comrade stated that a large force of well-fortified
Japanese pinned down the applicant.  He moved his troops in from opposite
directions to get him and another Soldier to safety.  Just then, a Japanese
grenade wounded the applicant and another Soldier.  The applicant was
allegedly hit in the right hand and lower arm (emphasis added).  Medics
treated both Soldiers and the applicant requested that his wounds not be
reported.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The VA decisional document presented by the applicant was considered by
the Board.  This record is not sufficient as a basis to award the Purple
Heart to the applicant.

2.  There is insufficient evidence in the applicant's available service
records to support his contentions that he was wounded in action during
World War II.

3.  By his own admission, the applicant allegedly refused to let any wound
be recorded in his record at the time he was allegedly wounded in action
and at the time of his separation.

4.  The above admission is supported by the applicant's comrade despite the
difference in the part of the body that was allegedly hit by shrapnel.  It
is his contention that the applicant wanted no record of a wound to be made
or included in his record and because of this, assuming that the applicant
was wounded in action and that he received medical treatment, the criteria
for award of the Purple Heart, that the medical treatment must have been
made a matter of official record, has not been met.  Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to award of the Purple Heart.

5.  While the VA may have reviewed the same evidence, the VA is guided by
its own policies and regulations and operates independently of the military
services. The VA administers benefits according to those policies and
regulations.  The
VA's decision was made in the applicant's favor although there were no
records available for review based on that agency's consideration of all
available evidence, the applicant's statements, the applicant's comrade's
statement, and resolved all reasonable doubt in the applicant's favor.  The
fact that the VA granted a noncompensable service-connected disability
rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.
Decisions made by the VA have no force or effects on the military services
and conversely, decisions made by the various branches of military services
have no force or effect on decisions made by the VA.

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 AR2002080193 dated 25 March 2003.




                                  _____   Fred Eichorn____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105631                            |
|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.  61                  |107.0015                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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