RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         7 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050012072


      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. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas H. Reichler            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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, that his deceased father, a former
service member (FSM), be awarded the Purple Heart (PH).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his father related to him on many
occasions that he was counseled by an officer at the time of his discharge
not to include the PH among his decorations so that it would be easier for
him to secure civilian employment and private life insurance.  He also
claims his father had muscular degeneration and sought help through two
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) programs.  On such program was a
monthly support group for blind veterans, which was called the VIST group.
After one of the meetings held years ago, his father informed him that he
had spoken to a person who worked at the VA who would help him change his
service record and restore the PH.  His father had reiterated the story of
what he was advised at the separation center, which was not to include the
PH in his separation document, that the medal would remain a part of his
record.  However, with the fire in St. Louis in the early 1970s, there was
no longer a permanent service record.  He further states that his father
had informed him that two of his buddies were killed when the truck went
over the mine, and for most of his life it remained a painful subject.  He
states that his father died in 2004, and he makes this request in his
father’s name.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Separation Document (WD AGO Form 53-55); Medical Treatment
Record
(WD AGO Form 8-24); Veteran’s Application for Pension or Compensation for
Disability Resulting from Active Military or Naval Service (VA Form 526);
and Certificate of Death.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 19 November 1945.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 8 August 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 FSM'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 FSM'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 the
FSM’s WD AGO Form 53-55 and the other documents submitted by the applicant.


4.  The FSM’s separation document shows he was inducted into the Army and
entered active duty on 3 November 1941.  He continuously served on active
duty for 4 years and 17 days until being honorably separated on 19 November
1945, by reason of demobilization.  This document also shows that he served
in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) from 21 March 1944 through 1
November 1945, and that he participated in the Ardennes, Central Europe,
Normandy, Northern France, and Rhineland campaigns.  It also shows, in Item
33 (Decorations and Citations), that he earned the American Campaign Medal,
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal and
World War II Victory Medal.

5.  Item 34 (Wounds Received In Action) of the FSM’s WD AGO Form 53-55
contains the entry “None”.  The FSM authenticated this document with his
signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person Being Separated).

6.  The applicant provides a WD AGO Form 8-24, dated 7 August 1945, which
shows the FSM was treated for an ankle sprain he received when a weapons
carrier hit a mine near Guardmer, France on 2 August 1945.  He also
provides a VA Form 526, dated 15 February 1946, which shows the FSM
requested disability compensation for an injury to his left ankle he
received in August 1945 and a hernia he received in November 1945.  In this
form the FSM claimed entitlement to the PH.

7.  During the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff
reviewed the historical records of the FSM's unit (602nd Anti-Aircraft
Artillery), and of the unit (302nd Medical Battalion) at which the FSM was
treated for his ankle injury, which are maintained at the National
Archives.  This review failed to provide any indication that the FSM was
ever recommended for or awarded the PH at either of these units.

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 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 that his deceased father was awarded the PH, but
it was left off his separation document based on the advice of a separation
processing officer, and the supporting evidence he submitted, were
carefully considered.  However, by regulation, in order to support award of
the PH, there must be evidence that the wound or injury for which the award
is being made was received as a result of enemy action.  Although there is
a medical treatment record that shows the FSM was treated for ankle injury
during World War II, there is no indication that this injury was the result
of enemy action, or that it resulted in a recommendation for, or award of
the PH by proper authority.

2.  The FSM was treated for this injury at a military medical treatment
facility in August 1945.  Given this fact, it is reasonable to presume that
if the injury in question qualified him to receive the PH, this action
would have been accomplished by the appropriate unit or medical facility
commander at the time.

3.  The veracity of the applicant’s claim that his father was awarded the
PH, but intentionally left it off his separation document on the advice of
a separation processing officer is not in question.  However, the
historical records for the FSM's unit and the unit where he was treated for
his ankle injury, which are maintained at the National Archives, failed to
show the FSM was ever recommended for or awarded the PH by proper authority
based on this injury.

4.  Further, the FSM's separation document does not include the PH in the
list of awards in Item 33, and Item 34 contains the entry "None", which
indicates he was never wounded in action.  The FSM authenticated this
document with his signature.  In effect, this was his verification that the
information contained on the WD AGO Form 53-55, to include the Item 33 and
Item 34 entries, was correct at the time the document was prepared and
issued.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support
award of the PH at this late date, and it would serve the interest of all
those who served during World War II and who faced similar circumstances to
add this award to the FSM's separation document at this late date.
5.  Records show the alleged error or injustice related to award of the PH
now under consideration should have been discovered on 19 November 1945,
the date of the FSM's separation.  Thus, based on the date the Board was
established, 2 January 1947, the time to file a request for correction of
any error or injustice expired on 1 January 1950.  However, a request was
not filed within the 3-year statute of limitations and the applicant 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

___JEA  _  __THR__  __SWF __  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.




                                  _____James E. Anderholm___
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050012072                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/03/07                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1945/11/19                              |
|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]