IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140006803 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his military records to show he was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received during World War II.

2.  The applicant states in a 7-page plea for the Purple Heart essentially the same arguments he made in his original application, but he has added approximately 2 pages of additional comments.  Those new comments are summarized as follows:

	a.  German and Italian forces in North Africa, Corsica, and Sicily were defeated with the help of the 92nd Army Division (all black Soldiers) activated in Italy with all white officers until late 1944 and early 1945 and with the help of the Tuskegee Airmen in Italy during 1944 - 1945 with all black officers.

	b.  The 93rd Army Division (all black) activated in the Pacific Theater of World War II and the 121st Quartermaster Battalion (Mobile) (all black) records were conveniently lost in the fire in 1973.

	c.  The applicant argues that the information on his Honorable Discharge stating his organization, date of separation, and his military occupational specialty provides proof he was where he said and he was not lying.  No one, to include the Board's letter of denial, has proved otherwise.



	d.  The applicant argues that he has been denied the Purple Heart because of racial prejudice that existed at the time of his military service and continues to exist.  

   e.  The applicant further states that he has complied with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b) by filing his application within 3 years of his discovery of the error.

	f.  The applicant argues that Items 32 and 33 on his discharge document prove he was where he said and the Board has not proved otherwise.  No one in the ABCMR has proved that any of his statements are not true.

	g.  The applicant contends that there was an effort to avoid giving him the Purple Heart and the benefits that would come with it.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Los Angeles Regional Office, made a decision to grant the applicant service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with an evaluation of 10 percent disability, effective 17 January 2013.  However, after a letter from the Director, Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 3 February 2014, informed the applicant that the Board had denied his request for the Purple Heart, his payment for PTSD was stopped.

3.  The applicant provides all of the documents that were with the original application, plus the following additional documents:

* A letters from the VA written to the applicant, dated 6 December 2010
* 17 May 2013, 1 July 2013, 16 July 2013, and 15 January 2014
* A letter from the National Personnel Records Center to the applicant, dated 24 July 2013
* A letter from the Chief, Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, to the applicant, dated 20 August 2013
* A VA Rating Decision, dated 14 January 2014 (4 pages)

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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20130014839, on 30 January 2014.

2.  The applicant's added comments and arguments, the seven letters, and the VA rating decision listed above are new evidence that require the Board's consideration.


3.  The original Record of Proceedings stated:

	a.  The applicant's 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.

	b.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation - Honorable Discharge) shows he enlisted in the Enlisted Reserve Corps on 10 December 1942 and he entered active duty on 22 February 1943.  This form shows the following pertinent information:

* item 6 (Organization) – Headquarters, 121st Quartermaster Battalion (Mobile)
* item 7 (Date of Separation) – 11 December 1945
* item 30 (Military Occupational Specialty) – Clerk Typist  405
* item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) – Rome-Arno and Po Valley
* item 33 (Decorations and Citations) –

* European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars
* Army Good Conduct Medal
* World War II Victory Medal
* one service stripe
* four overseas service bars

* item 34 (Wounds Received in Action) – "None"

	c.  The available evidence did not contain orders awarding him the Purple Heart.  Furthermore, a review of the Office of the Surgeon General files failed to show the applicant had been wounded in action or that he had received medical treatment for a wound received as a result of enemy action.

	d.  The applicant provided a self-authored statement wherein he claimed that he, along with innumerable black Soldiers of the era, were systemically subjected to racism.  This not only resulted in the inequitable treatment of black Soldiers, but also the use of unfair practices regarding recognition for awards and decorations, to include the Purple Heart.

	e.  The applicant provided associated documentation and statements from the applicant to and from the VA.  However, they failed to provide sufficient evidence to illuminate the applicant's circumstances surrounding his service and did not help to corroborate his claim for award of the Purple Heart.
	f.  Based on the available evidence which did not show he suffered from or was treated for a combat wound or injury, and the lack of convincing evidence from the applicant, the Board concluded that there was not sufficient evidence upon which to base an award of the Purple Heart.

	g.  The Board clearly stated it believed in the applicant's sincerity.  The Board's denial was based entirely on a lack of documents to show when, where, and how he was wounded, and documentation showing he required medical treatment for those wounds.

4.  The seven letters and VA rating decision, as provided by the applicant, state the following:

	a.  The three letters from the VA to the applicant, dated 6 December 2010, 
17 May 2013 and 16 July 2013, are essentially the same and informed the applicant that his application for compensation was still being processed.  These letters do not discuss his wounding or eligibility for award of the Purple Heart.

	b.  The letter from the VA to the applicant, dated 1 July 2013, informed the applicant that he needed to submit additional documentary evidence in connection with his pending claim.  The applicant indicated at the bottom of the second page that he had sent all the information or evidence that he had and requested that the VA process his claim as soon as possible.

	c.  A letter from the National Personnel Records Center to the applicant, dated 24 July 2013, informed him that the record needed to answer his inquiry was not available.  He was further informed that the location where his record would have been stored was where the 1973 fire caused the most damage and his records may have been destroyed.

	d.  A letter from the Chief, Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, to the applicant, dated 20 August 2013, acknowledged receipt of his original application to this Board and that it would be worked in the order in which received.

	e.  A VA Rating Decision, dated 14 January 2014 (4 pages) informed the applicant that he had been granted an evaluation of 10 percent effective 
17 January 2013 for PTSD.  It also informed him that service connection for chest and back shrapnel injury was denied because there was no current evidence showing a diagnosed disability.  The claim for residuals of a head injury (claimed as traumatic brain injury) was denied because the evidence he submitted was not new and material to the injury.

	f.  A letter from the VA to the applicant, dated 15 January 2014 informed the applicant of a cost of living adjustment to his monthly entitlement for PTSD.

5.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained in action against an enemy or as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show he was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received during World War II.

2.  The available evidence does not show the applicant was wounded as a direct result of enemy action, or that he received any medical treatment for such wounding.

3.  The applicant appears to be convinced that he has been denied the Purple Heart because of racial prejudice that existed at the time of his military service and continues to this date.  Furthermore, he seems to believe that the Board thinks he is lying about being wounded and receiving medical treatment.  This is far from the truth.  The Board has a great deal of respect for all members of the military, regardless of their race, and makes a concerted effort in each and every case brought before it to do the right thing.  However, the Board must have relevant and convincing evidence upon which to base any decision to grant an applicant's request.  When the primary evidence is a statement from the applicant, there must be convincing corroboration in the form of documented records, eyewitness statements, or historic accounts of particular events that specifically address the issue.  Just because the records show the applicant was at a particular place at a particular time, does not adequately prove he was wounded by the enemy.  Neither do body scars or residuals of metal fragments by themselves prove they were the result of enemy action.  There must be convincing evidence showing those conditions were the result of enemy action.

4.  The 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records center was a very unfortunate event.  Many former Soldiers have suffered a loss or denial of their requests because of that fire.  That fire destroyed many, many records and was anything but convenient for Soldiers of all races.

5.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  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 AR20130014839, dated 30 January 2014.



      ___________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)                                         AR20140006803



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140006803



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1