RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006409


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Luis Almodova                 |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy       |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James R. Hastie               |     |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
have Item 18 (Record of Assignments), of his DA Form 66 (Officer
Qualification Record), corrected to enter three specific missions he
accomplished in September 1951.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there were several evidentiary
mistakes in the Record of Proceedings which caused the Board to determine
that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that the overall merits of
the case were sufficient as a basis for correction of his record.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that paragraph 4 of the Consideration
of Evidence, of the Record of Proceedings, incorrectly describes him as
being a platoon leader whereas he was actually the company commander of
Company B, 9th Infantry Regiment, Far East Command.  He adds that the
author of the paragraph is playing with words and changing his title at
her convenience.

4.  The applicant states the author erred when she stated in the Record of
Proceedings, "that on 24 Sep 1951, the applicant sustained a perforating
wound on the right thigh----right foot."  He states he was wounded on 8 Sep
1951 which put things in a new chronological order.  It is his belief "the
author of this _____ record of proceedings did not have a copy of Lt.
A*******'s form 66."

5.  The applicant also states, in effect, in connection with the date he
was wounded in action, that paragraph 6 of the Consideration of Evidence,
of the Record of Proceedings, should show he was wounded on 8 September
1951 and not 24 September 1951.

6.  The applicant states, in effect, that the information shown in
paragraph 7 of the Consideration of Evidence, of the Record of Proceedings,
is not accurate.  After describing the actions and activities as he recalls
them, he asks, "Please tell it like it is."

7.  The applicant takes exception to the sentence in paragraph 4, in the
Discussions and Conclusions, of the Record of Proceedings, which states,
"In addition, there is no evidence the applicant was a company commander in
September 1951."  He provides the names and ranks of seven individuals who
he says knew he was the company commander in September 1951.
8.  The applicant states, in effect, paragraph 4 of the Consideration of
Evidence, of the Record of Proceedings, incorrectly shows he was assigned
duties as a platoon leader with Company B, 9th Infantry Regiment, Far East
Command, whereas he was assigned as a platoon leader with Company C.  He
accepted this position on his return from the hospital, following a bout
with hepatitis, to avoid confusion.

9.  The applicant states, in effect, paragraph 7, of the Consideration of
Evidence, of the Record of Proceedings, is incorrect about the date Captain
D___ joined the unit as its new commanding officer.  He states it was not
July 1951 but Captain D did not join the unit until 3 September 1951.

10.  The applicant states, in effect, that page 4, paragraph 4, of the
Discussion and Conclusions, of the Record of Proceedings, which states, "In
addition, in a 1982 letter to the Office of The Adjutant General, the
applicant stated that Captain D___ had taken over command of the company in
August 1951" has an incorrect date.  This is an error because Captain D___
only joined them on 4 September 1951, after the applicant had taken Hill
700.  [In the paragraph above, the applicant states Captain D___ had joined
the unit on 3 September 1951 and in this paragraph, he states the date was
4 September 1951.  The discrepancy in the date may be attributable to a
typographical error.]

11.  The applicant states the date [29 February 1956], in paragraph 5, of
the Discussions and Conclusions, of the Record of Proceedings, is incorrect
because the errors had not been committed until recently, along with the
publication of the story, "Bloody Ridge."

12.  The applicant concludes by stating, in effect, "there is no
justification for lying under any circumstances.  Furthermore it would be
impossible to take Bloody Ridge if you did not defuse – the mines and booby
traps on it.  There was enough to blow you to kingdom come.  It took half a
day to dig a path to my fox hole.  You failed to mention that in your story
about Bloody Ridge."

13.  In support of his request for reconsideration, the applicant
provides a copy of the Record of Proceedings at issue; a copy of a self-
authored paper, titled:  "How I Took Bloody Ridge"; a copy of his DD Form
214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States; the
second page of a DA Form 66, with three line entries integrated into Item
18, Record of Assignments [entries dated:  3, 7, and 8 September 1951],
and highlighted; and a copy of an internet article entitled, "2nd
Division on Bloody Ridge."

14.  In May 2006, the applicant followed up by submitting a copy of his
letter of appointment in the Regular Army as a second lieutenant, on 15
June 1950; a copy of Special Orders No. 39, paragraph 45, published by
Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., on 24 February
1956, releasing him from active duty in the rank of first lieutenant, with
an effective date of 29 February 1956; a second copy of his DD Form 214; a
second addendum to his request for reconsideration in which he recounts the
details, as he recalls them about the events that transpired while he
served in combat in Korea; in support of his request for reconsideration.

15.  In June 2006, the applicant submitted yet another copy of his DD Form
214 and a copy of Special Orders Number 39, which were published by
Headquarters, Department of the Army, on 24 February 1956, in support of
his request for reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were
summarized, in a previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army
Board for the Correction of Military Records in Docket Number AR20050004708
on 22 November 2005.

2.  Paragraph 4, of the Record of Proceedings, in the applicant's case,
specifically states, "The applicant provided a copy of the second page of
a DA Form 66 which shows that, on 23 July 1951, he was assigned duties as
a platoon leader with Company B, 9th Infantry Regiment, Far East Command.
On 3 September 1951, he was assigned duties as "Co Comdr (Took Hill 700)."
 On 7 September 1951, he was assigned duties as “Co Comdr (Took Bloody
Ridge)."  On 8 September 1951, he was assigned duties as “Co Comdr
(Wounded Heart Break Ridge)."  On 24 September 1951, this modified page
from his DA Form 66, shows he was a patient in Medical Hold Detachment,
Tokyo Army Hospital, in the Far East Command.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, paragraph 4 also incorrectly shows he
was assigned duties as a platoon leader with Company B, 9th Infantry
Regiment, Far East Command.  The applicant states, but provides no
documentary evidence to show, he was assigned as a platoon leader with
Company C.  He accepted this position, he states, to avoid confusion, on
his return from the hospital, following a bout with hepatitis.

4.  Item 18 (Record of Assignments), of the DA Form 66, in the applicant's
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), has the following entries, with
exception of information recorded in the "Non-Duty Days" and "Type of
Report" columns:

      "4 Oct 50 / 2622 / Unit Of Tng Ctr / Hq 365 Inf Regt Ft Dix NJ /
      9 Dec 50 / 1542 / Plat Ldr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      2 Mar 51 / 1542 / Co Comdr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      5 Mar 51 / 1542 / Plat Ldr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      22 Apr 51 / 0003 / Patient / Hosp Unknown /
      25 Apr 51 / 0003 / Patient / Osaka Army Hosp FECOM /
      8 Apr 51(sic) / 0003 / Patient / 35th Sta Hosp FECOM /
      23 Jul 51 / 1542 / Plat Ldr / Co B 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      24 Sep 51 / 0003 / Patient / MHD Tokyo Army Hosp FECOM /
      30 Nov 51 / 0003 / Patient / MHD WRAH Wash DC /."

5.  On 23 October 1952, it was recognized that no efficiency report(s)
was/were on file for the applicant for the period from 1 March 1951 through
23 September 1951.  The applicant's personnel officer was directed, through
the chain of command, to make a determination if an officer efficiency
report was required for all or any portion of the period in question.

6.  On about 19 November 1952, the following entries were extracted from
the applicant's DA Form 66, which was available on that date:

      "1Mar51 / 1Mar51 / 1542 / Plt Ldr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      2Mar51 / 4Mar51 / 1542 / Co Comdr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      5Mar51 / 21Mar51 / 1542 / Plat Ldr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      22Apr51 / 24Apr51 / 0003 / Patient / Hosp Unk /
      25Apr51 / 7May51 / 0003 / Patient / Asaka(sic) Army Hosp FECOM /
      8May51 / 11Jul51 / 0003 / Patient / Sta Hosp FECOM /
      12Jul51 / 19Jul51 / 0001 / Casual Off / JRTC FECOM /
      20Jul51 / 22Jul51 / 0001 / Casual Off / 2d Repl Co FECOM /
      23Jul51 / 23Sep51 / 1542 / Plat Ldr / Co B 9 Inf Regt FECOM /.”

7.  The evidence shows the correspondence, Subject:  Delayed Efficiency
Report, was accepted in lieu of an official efficiency report, for the
period 1 March 1951 to 23 September 1951, because the rating officer was
killed in action on 3 September 1951.  The correspondence was filed in the
applicant's OMPF in chronological date order in the efficiency 201 file.
8.  Paragraph 6, of the Record of Proceedings, in the applicant's case,
specifically states, "On 24 September 1951, the applicant sustained a
perforating wound of the right thigh with division of the femoral artery
that resulted, on 14 November 1951, in the amputation of his right foot.
He desired to return to duty and he was returned to duty on or about 14
November 1952.  Subsequently, he was found to be medically unfit for duty
and was retired by reason of physical disability on 29 February 1956.

9.  FEC AGO Form No. 241, Casualty Report, prepared on 4 October 1951,
shows in Item 7 (Date of Casualty), 24 September 1951.  In Item 20 (Remarks
or Diagnosis, it states, "Officer Slightly wounded in Action, 24 Sep 51,
Shell Fragment Wound penetrating right upper leg while attacking enemy
forces in the vicinity of Yanggu, North Korea.  DISP:  OFFICER evac to 8209
MASH, dtd 24 Sep 51."

10.  Paragraph 7, of the Record of Proceedings, in the applicant's case,
specifically states, and is a direct quote from the applicant's letter:
"In a 19 May 1982 letter to the Office of The Adjutant General, the
applicant stated, 'July 1951: .…Capt. D___ joined us as the new C.O.  After
seeing what we were doing, he asked the Bn. C.O. to permit him time to
under-study me.  His request was granted.  Aug. 1951:  Capt. D___ took
command of this company….'"

11.  The verbiage in the paragraph above appears in the letter the
applicant wrote to the Office of The Adjutant General, on 19 May 1982,
expressing his dissatisfaction in not having been promoted while he served
on active duty.  He felt ample consideration had not been given his
military record for advancement and therefore, he was including some of the
highlights of his service which he felt had been overlooked in
consideration for promotion.  The words were those of the applicant and not
the words of another person.

12.  Paragraph 4, in the Discussion and Conclusions, of the Record of
Proceedings, specifically states, "In addition, there is no evidence the
applicant was a company commander in September 1951.  The DA Form 66 in
his OMPF shows he last reviewed that form on 21 April 1955, at which time
the form in his OMPF showed he was a platoon leader in September 1951.
In addition, in a 1982 letter to the Office of The Adjutant General, the
applicant stated that Captain D___ had taken over command of the company
in August 1951."
13.  The verbiage contained within the confines of the quote marks, in the
above paragraph, were extracted from the 1982 letter to the Office of The
Adjutant General, the applicant wrote expressing his dissatisfaction over
not having been promoted.

14.  The applicant states, in effect, paragraph 4, of the Consideration of
Evidence, of the Record of Proceedings, incorrectly shows he was assigned
duties as a platoon leader with Company B, 9th Infantry Regiment, Far East
Command, whereas he contends he was assigned as a platoon leader with
Company C.  He accepted this position, he states, on his return from the
hospital, following a bout with hepatitis, to avoid confusion.  The
applicant's "official" DA Form 66, which is on file in the applicant's
OMPF shows he was assigned to Company B and not Company C, 9th Infantry
Regiment.  The record of the applicant's assignment prepared by his
personnel officer to reconstruct the period from 1 March 1951 through 23
September 1951 reflects the same information.

15.  Army Regulation (AR) 15-185, states, in effect, that the ABCMR will
consider individual applications that are properly brought before it.  The
ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record – evidence that is
submitted by applicants in support of their issue and evidence that is
contained in their service personnel records.  It is not an investigative
body.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The mistakes the applicant alleges were contained in the Record of
Proceedings were reviewed in detail.  He alleged the author of the
proceedings had played with words and changed his titled at her
convenience.  The applicant also alleged that dates were incorrectly shown
and did not reflect the events as they really occurred chronologically and
correction of these dates would put things in a new chronological order.

2.  The information reflected in paragraph 4, in the contested Record of
Proceedings, was extracted from the modified second page of the DA Form 66
which the applicant provided.  Both the "official" and the modified DA
Form 66 show, in Item 18, that on 23 July 1951, the applicant was assigned
duties as a platoon leader with Company B, 9th Infantry Regiment, Far East
Command.

3.  When it was recognized that no efficiency report(s) was/were on file
for the applicant for the period from 1 March 1951 through 23 September
1951, the
applicant's personnel officer was directed to make a determination if an
officer efficiency report was required for all or any portion of the period
in question.  The following entries were extracted from the applicant's DA
Form 66:

      "1Mar51 / 1Mar51 / 1542 / Plt Ldr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      2Mar51 / 4Mar51 / 1542 / Co Comdr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      5Mar51 / 21Mar51 / 1542 / Plat Ldr / Co C 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      22Apr51 / 24Apr51 / 0003 / Patient / Hosp Unk /
      25Apr51 / 7May51 / 0003 / Patient / Asaka(sic) Army Hosp FECOM /
      8May51 / 11Jul51 / 0003 / Patient / Sta Hosp FECOM /
      12Jul51 / 19Jul51 / 0001 / Casual Off / JRTC FECOM /
      20Jul51 / 22Jul51 / 0001 / Casual Off / 2d Repl Co FECOM /
      23Jul51 / 23Sep51 / 1542 / Plat Ldr / Co B 9 Inf Regt FECOM /."

4.  Correspondence, which was prepared in reply, Subject:  Delayed
Efficiency Report, contained the above dates, duty reporting codes, duty
titles, and unit designations and was accepted in lieu of an official
efficiency report, for the period 1 March 1951 to 23 September 1951,
because the applicant's rating officer had been killed in action on 3
September 1951.  The correspondence was filed in the applicant's OMPF in
chronological date order in the efficiency 201 file.

5.  There is no evidence the author of the paragraph played with words and
changed the applicant's title for her convenience.  "Official" documents
on file in the applicant's OMPF show he was a Platoon Leader on 23 July
1951, and not a company commander as he asserts.  These same "official"
documents also show he was assigned to Company B, 9th Infantry Regiment,
as opposed to Company C, as he now asserts.  Based on "official" documents
that were prepared at or near the time of the event, nearly 57 years ago,
the applicant is not entitled to a change of his record to reflect other
than what is shown.

6.  The applicant's contention he was wounded on 8 September 1951, and not
on 24 September 1951, is not supported by the evidence.  The applicant did
not provide any documentary evidence to support his contention he was
wounded on 8 September 1951.  On the contrary, an "official" Army document,
a casualty report, prepared on 4 October 1951, shows, "Date of Casualty,"
24 September 1951.  The applicant's additional contention the author erred
when she stated he was wounded in action on 24 September 1951 and she did
not have a copy of his DA Form 66 is incorrect.  The author based her
statement on evidence contained in his OMPF, which included his DA Form 66,
and other "official" Army files.

7.  The applicant is not entitled have the date he was wounded in action
currently shown in the Record of Proceedings changed to, in his words, "put
things in a new chronological order."

8.  The applicant contends paragraph 7, of the Record of Proceedings, is
not accurate and asks that it be told like it was.  The information
recorded in paragraph 7 is quoted from a letter the applicant wrote on 19
May 1982 to the Office of The Adjutant General, in which he stated, . . .
."in July 1951, Capt. D___ joined us as the new C.O.  After seeing what
we were doing, he asked the Bn. C.O. to permit him time to under-study
me.  His request was granted.  Aug. 1951:  Capt. D___ took command of
this company after several firefights, then we were ordered to assault a
hill called Heart Break Ridge."

9.  The information recorded in paragraph 7 is based on information the
applicant provided himself in a letter to The Adjutant General expressing
his dissatisfaction in not having being promoted while he was on active
duty.  The evidence shows the author told it like it was, based on the
applicant's own words and not the words of another; therefore, he is not
entitled to a change in the Record of Proceedings which was prepared in
response to his application dated 22 March 2005.

10.  The applicant took exception to the sentence in paragraph 4, in the
Discussions and Conclusions, of the Record of Proceedings, which stated,
"In addition, there is no evidence the applicant was a company commander in
September 1951."  He provides the names and ranks of seven individuals who
he says knew he was the company commander in September 1951.  His letter
to the Board implies the Board should ask these individuals to verify the
veracity of his claim.

11.  The applicant has filed several requests for correction to his
records and is, or should be, familiar with AR 15-185.  This regulation
states, in effect, that the ABCMR will consider individual applications
that are properly brought before it.  The ABCMR will decide cases on the
evidence of record – evidence that is submitted by applicants in support
of their issue and evidence that is contained in their service personnel
records.  It is not an investigative body.  Cases which are brought before
the Board are decided based upon the information provided by applicants,
and information on file in their service personnel records and in their
OMPF.  Although the applicant provided the names and ranks of seven
individuals
he says knew he was the company commander in September 1951, it is his
responsibility to get a statement in support of his request from these
individuals.  The applicant is therefore not entitled to an investigation
to find these individuals for the purpose of collecting statements to
support his contention he was a company commander in September 1951.

12.  The applicant's contention he was assigned to Company C on his return
from his hospitalization was not supported with documentary evidence.  The
applicant's DA Form 66 however contains the following three entries for the
period from about 8 April 1951 through 29 November 1951:

      "8 Apr 51(sic) / 0003 / Patient / 35th Sta Hosp FECOM /
      23 Jul 51 / 1542 / Plat Ldr / Co B 9 Inf Regt FECOM /
      24 Sep 51 / 0003 / Patient / MHD Tokyo Army Hosp FECOM /."

13.  The applicant contends, but does not provide any supporting documents
to show, the information recorded on his DA Form 66 is incorrect.  By his
statement that the record is incorrect, he infers a request for correction
of his record; however, he has failed to support his contention and is
therefore not entitled to a correction of his record to show he was
assigned to Company C as opposed to the currently shown Company B, on his
DA Form 66.

14.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant
must show, 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.

15.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___HOF__  __TEO _  ___JRH__  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 AR20050004708 on 22 November 2005.




                                  ____Hubert O. Fry________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006409                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070522                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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