RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02381 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH). _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received enemy-related injuries as a result of a parachute evacuation from his aircraft during a bombing mission. The pilot was justifiably more focused on getting the crew from a hostile environment to safety rather than documenting award entitlements. First aid was administered to his face and knee at the crew recovery site; however, he did not see a doctor until reaching Kunming, China, some 33 days later. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of War Department correspondence, copies of an interview from the aircraft pilot, discharge documents, documents provided by the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), and documents from the Army Review Boards Agency as a result of his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Army Air Corps who served on active duty from 10 April 1943 to 10 January 1946. He served as an aerial gunner and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant. He served 2 years, 10 months, and 13 days on active duty with 10 months and 18 days of Foreign Service. In accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-45, Decorations, during the period in question, the PH was awarded for wounds received in action against an enemy of the United States, or as a direct result of an act of such enemy, provided such wound necessitated treatment by a medical officer. For the purpose of awarding the PH, a wound was defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force, element, or agent, sustained as the result of a hostile act of the enemy, or while in action in the face of the enemy. When a person eligible for award of the PH was treated for a wound, the commanding officer of the hospital, or the medical officer who treated the wound, furnished the commanding officer of the wounded person a certificate briefly describing the nature of the wound, and certifying the necessity of treatment. In addition, a wounded soldier’s unsupported statement could be accepted in unusual or extenuating circumstances when, in the opinion of the officer making the award, no corroborative evidence was obtainable. However, the statement would be substantiated if possible. The applicant’s records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the NPRC. A reconstructed file was created by NPRC but contains minimal documentation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. DPSIDRA states the PH is awarded for wounds received as a direct result of enemy actions, (i.e., gunshot or shrapnel wounds, hand-to-hand combat wounds, forced aircraft bailout injuries, etc.). In addition, it is necessary the wound required or received treatment by medical personnel. Indirect injuries do not meet the criteria for award of the PH. These include, but are not limited to, injuries received while seeking shelter from mortar or rocket attacks, aircraft bombings, grenades, and injuries incurred while serving as an aircraft member or in a passenger status because of the aircraft’s evasive measures against hostile fire, or for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. DPSIDRA indicates that the applicant has not provided a detailed personal account, medical documentation verifying he received a wound as a direct result of enemy action that required medical treatment, and eye witness statement(s) to help support his claim. He has provided War Department memoranda to his family concerning his missing-in-action status over China on 12 July 1945; however, this documentation does not confirm that he received an injury as a direct result of enemy action that required and received medical treatment. The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He does not have evidence, in the form of records, to submit as he believes his records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, MO. He indicates that he can only provide a personal account of the injuries he sustained as a result of the forced bailout of his aircraft. He also contends that witness statements to support his claim are not possible as he cannot locate any of his crew members and he believes he may be the only surviving member of the incident. The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that he has met his burden of establishing that his records should be corrected to reflect his entitlement to the Purple Heart. While it is unfortunate the applicant’s records were destroyed by fire at the NPRC in 1973 and the remaining crewmembers have since passed away, it is still the applicant’s burden to provide evidence of error or injustice. We note that although the applicant contends that he received enemy-related injuries as a result of a forced bailout and that he received first aid for his facial and knee injuries, he does not indicate they were incurred as a direct result of enemy action nor does he provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances surrounding how the injuries were incurred. The interview of the aircraft pilot is noted; however, it does not indicate the applicant, or any crewmember, was wounded as a direct result of enemy action. Moreover, we find no medical evidence that he ever received treatment for wounds, incurred as a direct result of enemy action or while engaged in action against the enemy. To the contrary, Item 34, Wounds Received in Action, of his Record of Service, reflects “No.” In view of this record and absent evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02381 in Executive Session on 2 February 2012 and 9 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02381: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 25 Oct 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Dec 11.