RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           22 February 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050008135


      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. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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, he received a shrapnel wound while
going through a mine field on Omaha Beach on 6 June 1944.  He claims he was
treated by a medical corpsman (MEDIC) in the field and at the evacuation
hospital after it was set-up.  He states that he continued to perform his
duties for many days and his home was a foxhole with another Soldier.

3.  The applicant provides the names of two Soldiers he served with;
however, he did not provide any documentary evidence in support of his
claim.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 13 December 1945, the date of his separation.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 23 May 2005.

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 (NPRC) 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 consist of a
Separation Document
(WD AGO Form 53-55 and Separation Qualification Record (WD AGO Form 100).
4.  The applicant’s separation document shows he enlisted in the Army and
entered active duty on 3 May 1943.  He served in military occupational
specialty 677 (Military Police) and was assigned to the 210th Military
Police Company.

5.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 also shows he served in the European
Theater of Operations (ETO) from 24 November 1943 through 24 November 1945,
and that he participated in the Normandy, Northern France, Rhineland, and
Central Europe campaigns.  Item 33 (Decorations and Citations) shows that
during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards:  Army Good
Conduct Medal (AGCM); European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with 4
bronze service stars and bronze arrowhead; World War II Victory Medal;
Distinguished Unit Badge; Meritorious Unit Award; and 4 Overseas Service
Bars.

6.  Item 34 (Wounds Received In Action) of the applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-
55 contains the entry “None”, and the applicant authenticated this document
with his signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person Being Separated) on the
date of his separation, 13 December 1945.

7.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 100 shows that he held the rank of private
first class (PFC) on the date of his separation.  It also shows that he
served as a Military Policeman in the ETO and worked on road patrol with a
motorcycle and jeep.  It also indicates he did interior guard duty in towns
and assisted civilian authorities in maintaining law and order among
civilian and military personnel beside other police duties.  There is no
indication that he was wounded in action on this form.

8.  There are no medical documents remaining in the applicant’s file
indicating that he was ever wounded in action, or treated for a combat
related wound or injury.

9.  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.  The wound or injury for
which the PH is being awarded must have required treatment by a medical
officer, this treatment must be supported by medical treatment records that
were made a matter of official record.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim of entitlement to the PH and the supporting
evidence he provided were carefully considered.  However, by regulation, in
order to support award of the PH, there must be evidence a member was
wounded/injured in action, was treated for the wound/injury by military
medical personnel, and a record of this medical treatment must have been
made a matter of official record.

2.  The veracity of the applicant’s claim that he was wounded in action and
is entitled to the PH while serving during World War II is not in question.
 However, his separation document contains the entry “None” in the wounds
received in action block, and the PH is not included in the list of earned
awards contained on the separation document.  The applicant authenticated
the WD AGO Form 53-55 with his signature on the date of his separation, 13
December 1945.  In effect, his signature was his verification that the
information contained on the separation document, to include the Items 33
and 34 entries, was correct at the time the
WD AGO Form 53-55 was prepared and issued.

3.  Absent evidence (eye-witness statements, medical treatment records,
etc.) to corroborate that he was wounded in action, or treated for a combat
related wound or injury military medical personnel, the regulatory burden
of proof necessary to support award of the PH has not been satisfied in
this case.  As a result, his request for the PH must be denied in the
interest of all those who served during World War II and who faced similar
circumstances.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice related to award of the PH now under consideration on 13 December
1945, the date of his separation from active duty.  Therefore, 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.
 However, 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 file.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JTM     __LMD __  __DLL __  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.




            ____John T. Meixell _____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050008135                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/02/22                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1945/12/13                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-365                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Demobilization                          |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  61   |107.0015                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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