RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         13 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000127


      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             |
|     |Ms. Betty A. Snow                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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 request to be
awarded the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he received a Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) rating decision that granted him service connection for a
shell fragment wound to the left ankle, which is the wound he based his PH
request on.  He asks that the Board decision be reconsidered based on this
evidence.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and VA rating decision
document in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2004103482, on 14 October 2004.

2.  During its original review of this case, the evidence of record
included a an Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG) hospital admission
records that indicated the applicant was hospitalized from 10 August
through 9 September 1950, and treated for a psychoneurotic disorder and
malaria, both of which were categorized as non-battle conditions.  These
OTSG records contained no information regarding treatment for a combat
related wound or injury.  The evidence reviewed by the Board also included
a separation physical examination record (SF 88), dated 23 August 1951,
which noted no significant abnormalities and no notable defects.  The Board
concluded there was an insufficient evidentiary basis to support award of
the PH in the applicant’s case.

3.  The applicant now provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 6 October 2004.
This document indicates he was granted service connection for a shrapnel
wound to the left ankle, and was awarded a 0 percent disability rating.
The rating decision and attachments contain no indication that military
medical records were used in this evaluation, or that the specific facts
and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s shrapnel wound on file in the
official record.  Further, there is no indication in the VA document that
the applicant’s shrapnel wound to the left ankle was received as a direct
result of, or was caused by enemy action.
4.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army’s awards
policy.  Paragraph 2-8 contains guidance on awarding the PH.  It states, in
pertinent part, that in order to support award of the PH, there must be
evidence confirming the wound/injury for which the award is being made was
the direct result of, or caused by enemy action, the wound or injury must
have required treatment by medical officials and this medical treatment
must have been made a matter of official Army records.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The new evidence provided by the applicant was carefully considered.
However, while it confirms the VA granted him service connection for a
shrapnel wound to the left ankle, it provides no confirmation that this
condition was combat related.

2.  By regulation, in order to support award of the PH, there must be
evidence confirming the wound/injury for which the award is being made was
incurred as a direct result of, or was caused by enemy action, there must
be evidence that the wound/injury was treated by military medical personnel
and this treatment must have been made a matter of official record.

3.  Absent any evidence of record, or new independent evidence provided by
the applicant that confirm the applicant’s wound were incurred as a direct
result of, or were cause by enemy action, the regulatory burden of proof
necessary to support award of the PH has still not been satisfied in this
case.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support
amendment of the original Board decision in this case.

4.  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.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SLP _  __RLD __  ___JRM _  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 AR2004103482, dated 14 October 2004.




                                  ____Shirley L. Powell  _____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000127                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |2004-10-14                              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005-09-13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.0015                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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