IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 January 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090013536 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Purple Heart (PH) and the Presidential Unit Citation (PUC).  

2.  The applicant states that his discharge document does not show his service with Company E, 383rd Infantry, 96th Infantry Division during the Okinawa campaign where he was wounded in battle and suffered hearing loss from bombs, machine guns, and mortar shells.  He contends that he did not receive the PH or the PUC given to the 96th Infantry Division and he has not received financial aid from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:  his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge), a statement from a former fellow Soldier, a personal statement, personal photographs, and medical reports.  

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 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.

3.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 25 August 1944.  His highest grade attained was sergeant.  His WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he served in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater of Operations from 28 February 1945 to 12 August 1946.  

4.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 25 October 1946.  His WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was awarded the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with one bronze service star, the Philippine Liberation Ribbon, the Philippine Independence Ribbon, the Good Conduct Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, three Overseas Service Bars, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.  

5.  His WD AGO Form 53-55 shows the entry "None" in item 34 (Wounds Received in Action).  There is no evidence which indicates he sustained wounds as a result of hostile action.  

6.  Item 6 (Organization) on his WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was assigned to Company K, 342nd Infantry prior to being separated from the Separation Center at Fort Sam Houston, TX on 25 October 1946.

7.  Item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) of his WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he received campaign credit for participation in the Ryukyus campaign.

8.  The applicant provided a letter of support from a former fellow Soldier.  The former Soldier stated he was a member of the U.S. Army, Company E, 383rd Infantry, 96th Infantry Division and served in the Okinawa campaign with the applicant from April 1945 until July 1945.

9.  The applicant provided a self-authored statement in support of his claim.  He stated that he was sent from Pearl Harbor to Saipan then to Okinawa in April 1945 as a replacement.  He continued by stating that he was placed in the 


96th Infantry Division and assigned to Company E, 383rd Infantry Division as a machine gunner and squad leader in the machine gun section where they battled Japanese Soldiers in fox holes day and night.  He alleged that they were bombarded with hand grenades, rifle fire, bombs, and mortar shells and he was hit in the left and right shoulders and arms.  He was treated by a medic on the battle field and was told to return to the fox hole, but he did not receive a Purple Heart for these wounds.  The applicant further stated he was then transferred to Company K, 342nd Infantry in the Philippine Islands where they trained Philippine Soldiers for combat duty and cleaned up where Navy Air Force had been stationed and trained.  He was sent home in June 1946 to Fort Ord, CA and reassigned to Fort Sam Houston, TX where he was discharged on 25 October 1946.  

10.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register), dated 6 July 1961, shows, among other information, unit awards and citations authorized for units which served during World War II.  This pamphlet shows the Distinguished Unit Citation (currently known as the PUC) was awarded to Company “L” of the 383rd Infantry, 96th Infantry Division and this unit received campaign credit for Leyte and Ryukyus.  

11.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 does not show Company K, 342nd Infantry was cited for award of the PUC during World War II.  This pamphlet shows that this unit received campaign credit for Central Europe.  

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was the result of hostile action, the wound must have required treatment by medical personnel, 
and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  This 
regulation states that when contemplating award of the Purple Heart, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree in which the enemy caused the injury.  The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not the sole justification for award.  It further states that injuries or wounds which clearly do not justify award of the Purple Heart includes accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action.



13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Presidential Unit Citation (known as the Distinguished Unit Citation until 3 November 1966) is awarded for extraordinary heroism in action.  A unit must display such gallantry, determination and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission as would warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross to an individual.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge document does not show his service with Company E, 383rd Infantry, 96th Infantry Division during the Okinawa campaign where he was wounded in battle and suffered hearing loss from bombs, machine guns, and mortar shells.  Based on the available evidence, it appears the applicant’s last unit of assignment was Company E, 383rd Infantry, 96th Infantry Division while he was assigned to the Asiatic-Pacific Theater of Operations and most likely he was assigned to the 342nd Infantry Regiment, 86th Infantry only for movement for the separation activity at Fort Sam Houston, TX.  However, there are no medical documents which indicate the applicant was wounded as a result of hostile action during World War II.  In addition, his WD AGO Form 53-55 does not reflect he received any wounds in action.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to base award of the PH in this case.

2.  The applicant also contends that he did not receive the PUC that was awarded to the 96th Infantry Division.  However, the Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 shows that Company “L,” 383rd Infantry, 96th Infantry Division was cited for award of the PUC.  There is no evidence which shows Company “E” [the applicant's company] was cited for this award.  Therefore, there is no basis for amending his records to show award of the PUC.  

BOARD VOTE:

____X___  ____X___  ____X___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____ ___    ____ ___    ____ ___  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      _______ _   X______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090013536



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090013536



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1