RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 February 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013152


      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. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast         |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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
petition to be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was wounded in action during
the battle of Maximieux, France, on 2 September 1944, at the time he was
taken as a Prisoner of War (POW).

3.  The applicant provides a third-party statement and Congressional
Inquiry 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
AR20060008801, on 17 January 2007.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found no evidence of
record to corroborate his claim that he had been wounded in action while
being taken as a POW, that treated for a combat related wound or injury, or
that he had ever been recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority
during his World War II active duty service.

3.  The applicant now provides as new evidence a self-authored letter to
his Representative in Congress, in which he states that he previously could
not prove he had been wounded and treated by German medical personnel
because there were no records, and in his two previous attempts at trying
to resolve this matter, he was refused consideration.  He states he now has
evidence from an American Soldier who was with him in the concentration
camp and has made a statement on his behalf.  He also provides a third-
party statement from an individual who states that he was with the
applicant during the action that resulted in them being taken as POWs.
This individual claims they were under an enemy attack and shrapnel came in
on them from all sides.  He states the applicant was cut badly on his hands
and was bleeding profusely.  He also indicates that since he spoke German,
he asked the German Commander to treat their wounded, which they finally
did.  He states that the next time he saw the applicant was at Stalag 7A in
Moosburg, Germany.  He indicates that he and the applicant have stayed in
contact over the 62 years since this incident.

4.  The applicant's record shows that he was inducted into the Army and
entered active duty on 5 May 1943.  He served in the European Theater of
Operations (ETO) from 27 October 1943 through 3 June 1945, and was a POW
from
2 September 1944 through 3 May 1945.  On 2 November 1945, he was honorably
separated, in the rank of private first class (PFC), by reason of
demobilization after completing 1 year, 7 months and 7 days of active
military service.   The separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) issued to
him at this time does not include the PH in the list of awards contained in
Item 33 (Decorations and Citations), and Item 34 (Wounds Received In
Action) contains the entry "None".  The applicant authenticated this
document with his signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person Being
Separated) on the date of his separation.

5.  The applicant's record shows he entered the Army National Guard (ARNG)
in an enlisted status on 15 June 1946, and served in that status until 25
August 1956.  On 26  August 1950, he reentered active duty in the Army of
the United States (AUS) and served in that status until 22 May 1952.  He
again served in an enlisted status in the ARNG between 23 May 1952 and 2
February 1953, with a break in service from 15 June through 14 December
1952.  On 3 February 1953, he was appointed a warrant officer in the ARNG
and served in that status until being transferred to the United States Army
Reserve for retirement on 31 August 1984.

6.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) does not
include the PH in the list of awards contained in Item 9 (Awards,
Decorations & Campaigns).  Item 33 (Date Prepared/Reviewed) shows the
applicant last reviewed the DA Form 2-1 on 9 August 1984.

7.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no
orders or other documents indicating that the applicant was ever
recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority during his military
service tenure.  It also contains no medical treatment records showing that
he was ever wounded in action or treated for a combat related wound.  There
is also no indication in the record that the applicant ever attempted to
pursue his claim for the PH at anytime prior to his retirement in August
1984.

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 the wound for
which the award is being made was received as a result of enemy action;
that the wound required treatment by a medical officer; and this treatment
must be supported by medical treatment records that were made a matter of
official record.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration of his earlier petition to
be awarded the PH was carefully reconsidered.  However, there is still an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

2.  By regulation, in order to support award of the PH there must be
evidence that the wound for which the award is being made was received as a
result of enemy action, that it required treatment by military medical
personnel, and a record of this treatment must have been made a matter of
official record.  In this case, no evidence confirming the applicant was
wounded in action or treated for a combat related wound by military medical
personnel was ever made a matter of official record.

3.  The applicant's record is void of any orders or other documents that
indicate he was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority
during
his World War II service.  The separation document issued to him on
2 November 1945, does not include the PH in the list of awards contained in
Item 33, and Item 34 of this document contains the entry "None", which
indicates he was not wounded in action during that period of active duty
service.  The applicant authenticated the WD AGO Form 53-55 with his
signature in Item 56 on the date of his separation.  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 WD AGO Form 53-55 was prepared and issued.

4.  Further, the applicant's record contains no medical treatment records
or other medical records that indicate he was ever wounded in action, or
treated for a combat related wound or injury during his military service
tenure.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1, which he last reviewed on 9 August
1984, shortly before his retirement, does not include the PH in the list of
awards contained in Item 9.  In effect, his review was his verification
that the information contained on the
DA Form 2-1, to include the list of awards contained in Item 9, was correct
at that time.

5.  There is no indication that the applicant ever pursued his claim of
entitlement to the PH at anytime prior to his August 1984 retirement.  The
individual providing the third-party statement that indicates the applicant
received wounds to his hands during the action that led to them being taken
as POWs in September 1945, confirms he and the applicant have maintained
contact over the 62 years since the incident in question; however, prior to
this request, the applicant has never submitted a statement supporting his
claim of entitlement to the PH from this individual, which includes his
prior 2006 application to this Board.

6.  In his letter to his Representative in Congress, the applicant claims
that in his two previous attempts at trying to resolve this matter, he has
been refused consideration.  However, the evidence of record shows his
prior application to this Board was given full consideration and his
request and military records were thoroughly reviewed prior to the Board's
denial.  His current application and the new evidence he now provides have
again been carefully and thoroughly reviewed.

7.  Given the completeness of his record and the presumption of regularity
attached to these records, and the absence of any evidence of record to
corroborate the information contained in the third-party statement provided
by the applicant, or that confirms his entitlement to the PH, the
regulatory burden of proof necessary to support award of the PH has still
not been satisfied in this case.  As a result, it would not be in the
interest of all those who served during World War II and who faced similar
circumstances to award him the PH at this late date.

8.  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 or that would support
amendment of the original Board on this matter.

9.  This decision in no way detracts from his outstanding record of combat
service during World War II.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__PHM __  __ECP__  __MJF __  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 AR20060008801, dated 17 January 2007.





                                  _____Patrick H. McGann___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070013152                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20060008801 - 2007/01/17              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2008/01/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1984/08/31                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Res Ret                                 |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  46   |107.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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