RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011995


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Roland S. Venable             |     |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, award of the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the PH was never requested because of
the fighting they were doing.  He claims an Office of The Surgeon General
(OTSG) record shows he was treated for a laceration wound in 1944, and he
is drawing a disability from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for
hearing loss, which was the result of a bomb blast, which was also the
cause of the laceration wound.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and document extracts
from a VA claim appeal in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 23 June 1945, the date of his separation.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 16 August 2006.

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 applicant’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
applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there
were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board
to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  This case is being
considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consists of the
applicant's separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55).

4.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he enlisted in the Regular Army
and entered active duty on 16 June 1941.  It also shows that he served in
the European Theater of Operations (ETO) from 29 January 1944 until
arriving back in the United States on 17 June 1945, and that he
participated in the Normandy, Northern France, and Rhineland campaigns of
World War II.
5.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 also confirms he held the rank of
corporal on the date of his separation, and that this was the highest rank
he attained while serving on active duty.  Item 33 (Decorations and Awards)
shows that he earned the following awards during his tenure on active duty:
 European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with 3 bronze service stars
and bronze arrowhead; American Defense Service Medal; Army Good Conduct
Medal; and Bronze Star Medal.  Item 34 (Wounds Received in Action) contains
the entry "None", and the applicant authenticated this separation document
with his signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person Being Separated) on the
date of his separation, which was 23 June 1945.

6.  The applicant's National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) file is void
of any medical treatment records that confirm the applicant was ever
treated for a combat-related wound or injury while serving on active duty
and it contains no orders or other documents showing he was ever
recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority while serving on
active duty.

7.  The applicant provides a statement indicating that while sleeping below
ground level during his shift at night during World War II, a bomber
dropped a large bomb, which landed some 50 meters from where he was
sleeping, which resulted in his suffering from a concussion as a result of
this bomb blast.  He claims he suffered from some hearing loss and tinnitus
that has become progressively worse.  He also provides partial VA claim
appeal documents that indicate that in August 2004, a VA audiologist stated
that in view of the type of hearing loss experienced by the applicant and
the reported history of combat-related noise exposure, the applicant's
hearing loss and tinnitus may be related to his military service.  A legal
analysis contained in the VA documents provided indicates the applicant's
claim to service connection for hearing loss was denied in July 1995,
because the available service medical records did not show any treatment
for or diagnosis of a hearing problem, and no records showing a hearing
loss occurred in service.

8.  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 in order to award a PH there must be evidence that a member was
wounded or injured as a result of enemy action, that the wound required
treatment by military medical personnel, and a record of this treatment
must have been made a matter of official record.



9.  Paragraph 5-11 of the awards regulation provides guidance on the World
War II Victory Medal.  It states, in pertinent part, that it was authorized
for members who served on active duty between 7 December 1941 and 31
December 1946, both dates inclusive.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH was carefully
considered.  However, in order to support award of the PH, there must be
evidence confirming the member was wounded in action, that the wound for
which the award is being made required treatment by military medical
personnel, and a record of this medical treatment must have been made a
matter of official record.

2.  The applicant's NPRC file is void of any orders, or other documents,
that indicate he was ever recommended for, or awarded the PH by proper
authority while serving on active duty.  Further, as confirmed in the VA
document extracts provided by the applicant, his medical service records
gave no indication of treatment for or diagnosis of a hearing problem.
There is also no indication that he was ever treated for a combat related
wound or injury during his active duty service.  Further, the PH is not
included in the list of awards contained in Item 33 of the applicant's
separation document, and Item 34 contains the entry "None", which indicates
he was never wounded in action.  The applicant authenticated the WD AGO
Form 53-55 with his signature in Item 56 on the date of his separation from
active duty.  In effect, his signature was his verification that the
information contained on the separation document, to include the Item 33
and Item 34 entries, was correct at the time the document was prepared and
issued.

3.  The veracity of the applicant's claim that he suffered a concussion and
laceration as a result of a bomb blast near his position during World War
II is not in question.  However, absent any evidence corroborating that the
applicant's laceration and hearing loss were the result of enemy action
and/or that he was ever treated for a combat related wound or injury while
serving on active duty, the regulatory burden of proof necessary to support
award of the PH has not been satisfied in this case.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration related to award of the PH on 23 June
1945, the date of his separation from active duty.  Thus, based on the date
the Board was established, 2 January 1947, the time for him to file a
request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 1 January 1950.
 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.
5.  The evidence of record does show that based on his World War II
service, the applicant is entitled to the World War II Victory Medal.  The
omission of this award from his separation document is an administrative
matter that does not require Board action.  Therefore, the Case Management
Support Division (CMSD), St. Louis, Missouri, will administratively correct
his record as outlined in paragraph 3 of the BOARD
DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JEA  _  __SWF__  __RSV __  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.

3.  The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the
individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the
CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual
concerned to show his entitlement to the World War II Victory Medal.




                                  _____James E. Anderholm___
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060011995                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/06                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1945/06/23                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-365                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Demobilization                          |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY with Note                          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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