RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 November 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070009324


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |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, that he survived the Battle of the
Bulge only to be wounded on 8 March 1945, in the allied assault on Cologne,
Germany.

3.  The applicant provides a newspaper article in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an
applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations
if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided
in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a
substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is
granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are
insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's record shows that he was inducted into the Army of the
United States on 21 October 1943 and entered active duty on 11 November
1943.  His Service Record (WD AGO Form 24) shows he departed the United
States for the European Theater of Operations (ETO) on 18 July 1944 and
arrived there for duty on 29 July 1944.  It also shows that while serving
in the ETO, he participated in the Ardennes, Rhineland, and Central Europe
campaigns, and that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following
awards:  European-African-Middle Eastern (EAME) Campaign Medal with bronze
arrowhead and 3 bronze service stars; Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM); World
War II Victory Medal; and Distinguished Unit Badge (DUB).  The PH is not
included in the list of authorized awards documented in his WD AGO Form 24.


3.  The applicant's Service Record contains a medical treatment record that
confirms the applicant was treated at the 195th General Hospital for non-
battle related shrapnel wounds to his left thigh, right wrist, right hand,
and right chest, which were incurred as a result of an accidental grenade
explosion on 7 March 1945.

4.  On 17 January 1946, the applicant was honorably separated, in the rank
of staff sergeant, after completing a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 8
days of active military service.  The separation document (WD AGO Form 53-
55) he was issued at the time shows, in Item 33 (Decorations and
Citations), that he earned the EAME Campaign Medal, AGCM, DUB, and World
War II Victory Medal during his active duty tenure.  The PH is not included
in the list of awards contained in Item 33 and Item 34 (Wounds Received in
Action) contains the entry "None."  The applicant authenticated this
separation document with his signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person
Being Separated) on the date of his separation.

5.  The applicant provides a newspaper article that indicates he survived
the Battle of the Bulge only to be wounded in the allied drive on Germany
on 8 March 1945.

6.  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.  Paragraph 2-8h contains
examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not justify award of the
PH.  This list includes accidents, to include explosive, aircraft,
vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy
action.

7.  Paragraph 5-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal.  It states, in pertinent
part, that a bronze service star it authorized with this award for each
campaign a member is credited with participating in while serving in the
ETO.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's claim of entitlement to the PH was carefully
considered.  However, by regulation, in order to support award of the PH
there must be evidence confirming that the wound for which the award is
being made was received as a result of enemy action.  The regulation
further stipulates that accidental wounding not related to or caused by
enemy action clearly does not justify award of the PH.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the shrapnel wounds the applicant
sustained in March 1945 were received as a result of an accidental grenade
explosion and were non-battle related, and as a result did not result in
award of the PH.  Further, the PH is not included in the list of awards
contained in the applicant's service record, or in Item 33 of his
separation document.  Item 34 of his WD AGO Form 53-55 contains the entry
"None", which indicates he was never wounded as a result of enemy action,
and the applicant authenticated this separation document with his signature
on the date of his separation.  In effect, his signature on the WD AGO Form
53-55 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.  Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence that confirms the
applicant was wounded as a result of enemy action, the regulatory burden of
proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied in this
case.

4.  The evidence does show that based on his campaign participation in the
ETO, the applicant is entitled to 3 bronze service stars with his EAME
Campaign Medal.  The omission of this item from his separation document is
an administrative matter that does not require Board action.  Therefore,
the Case Management Support Division, St. Louis, Missouri, will
administratively correct his record as outlined by the Board in paragraph 2
of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEA___  __LE   __  __JCR___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice related to award of the Purple Heart.  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.  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 3 bronze service stars with his
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; and by providing him a
correction to his separation document that reflects this change.

3.  The applicant and all others concerned should know that this action in
no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our
Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his
service in arms.




                                  _____James E. Anderholm____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070009324                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/11/07                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1946/01/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-365                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Demobilization                          |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY with Note                          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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