PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           8 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036734

	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. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, as the representative of the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), that the FSM’s award of the Distinguished Service Cross be upgraded to the Medal of Honor.

3.  The applicant states that he believes the FSM’s award of he Distinguished Service Cross should be upgraded to the Medal of Honor because the FSM acted above and beyond the call of duty.  In support of the application, the applicant (the Director of Veteran Services for Everett, Massachusetts) has provided a letter from the widow of the FSM authorizing him to act on her behalf in this case, a 15 June 1999 letter to a Member of Congress, a copy of the FSM’s WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation), an extract of Third U.S. Army General Order Number 60 awarding the Distinguished Service Cross to the applicant, copies of orders for awards of the Purple Heart to the applicant, a copy of a 16 June 1999 letter from a Member of Congress to the National Personnel Records Center, a copy of an Army Times newspaper article which describes legislation (currently known as Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code) allowing consideration for upgrading awards of the Distinguished Service Cross to Asian-Americans and native American Pacific Islanders, a 7 January 2000 letter from the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) denying reconsideration of award of the Medal of Honor to the FSM, and a 21 January 2000 letter from the applicant to the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) appealing the decision in the PERSCOM letter.  The applicant also submitted a 19 June 2000 letter with a Boston Globe newspaper article attached regarding awards of the Medal of Honor to soldiers of Japanese ancestry.

4.  The FSM’s military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show that the FSM entered active duty on 14 April 1943.  He served as a medical aidman in the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater of Operations from 30 January 1943 to 3 November 1945.  The FSM was honorably discharged on 15 November 1945 and he died on 17 May 1966.

5.  The FSM’s WD AGO Form 53-55 shows that he received award of the Purple Heart based on 80th Division General Orders Number 5, dated 5 January 1945; the Distinguished Unit Badge based on an unidentified General Order Number 60, dated 18 March 1945, the European-African-Middle Eastern Service Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal.

6.  The applicant provided an extract of Third U.S. Army General Order Number 60, dated 18 March 1945.  Contrary to the FSM’s discharge document which shows award of the “Distinguished Unit Badge”, this General Order awarded the FSM the Distinguished Service Cross.

7.  The citation for this decoration shows that the FSM was a member of the Medical Detachment of the 318th Infantry Regiment of the 80th Division when he was cited:  “For extraordinary heroism in connection with an armed enemy in Luxembourg and Germany.  On 8 February 1945, [the FSM], an aid man, accompanied his rifle company in a hazardous assault across the flooded Sauer River.  On the far shore, after the boats had been returned, the company was subjected to a heavy enemy mortar concentration which wounded [the FSM] and a number of men.  This courageous soldier, knowing that the wounded men needed immediate evacuation, boldly plunged into the frozen flood-waters and under a hail of fire battled his way against the swift current to the opposite shore. There, obtaining a boat he made his way back across the river under fire and with the aid of another man succeeded in evacuating the wounded soldiers.  Only then did he disclose his wound.  This soldier’s supreme courage and heroic determined devotion to duty exemplify the finest traditions of the military service.”

8.  Records show that the a recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor to the FSM was submitted through a Member of Congress on 1 October 1999 and was accepted by the Secretary of the Army under the provisions of Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code.  On 28 October 1999, this recommendation for award was considered by the Army Decorations Board.  The Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the criteria for the proposed award of the Medal of Honor and by unanimous vote recommended disapproval of award of the Medal of Honor.  As a result, the Commanding General of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, disapproved award of the Medal of Honor.

9.  In a 7 December 1999 letter to the Adjutant General of the Army, the applicant stated that he wished to appeal denial of the Medal of Honor in this case to the Secretary of Defense and that he would like to appear before the “Awards Board” to plead the FSM’s case.  A 7 January 2000 letter from the Chief of the Personnel Support Division advised the applicant that reconsideration of an award is allowed only if substantive new evidence is presented and that no such evidence had been presented by the applicant to support reconsideration.

10.  The applicant provided a copy of 80th Division General Order Number 44, dated 13 February 1945, which shows the FSM was wounded a second time and, as a result, was awarded a second Purple Heart, correctly known as the Purple Heart (First Oak Leaf Cluster).

11.  The Board noted that the FSM was awarded the Combat Medical Badge; however, there is no evidence that he received award of the Bronze Star Medal based on award of the Combat Medical Badge.

12.  Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code provides that the Service concerned will review a proposal for the award of, or upgrading of, a decoration that would not otherwise be authorized to be awarded based upon time limitations previously established by law.  Requests for consideration of awards should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates and related documents.  Corroborating evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders and fellow comrades who had personal knowledge of the circumstances and events relative to the request.  A request for award not previously submitted in a timely fashion will only be considered under this provision if the request has been referred to the Service Secretary from a Member of Congress.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling documentation to support approval of requested awards and decorations rests with the requester.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, for award of the Medal of Honor.  The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who while a member of the Army distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  The regulation provides that the deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved the risk of life.  Further, the regulation requires that “incontestable proof” of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

14.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides in paragraph 3-1c that the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority.

15.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 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, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record.  The bronze oak leaf cluster is awarded to denote the second and succeeding awards of certain decorations, among which is the Purple Heart.

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 also provides, in pertinent part, that the Bronze Star Medal is awarded for heroism and for meritorious achievement or service in military operations against an armed enemy.  The Bronze Star Medal is authorized for each individual who was cited in orders or awarded a certificate for exemplary conduct in ground combat between 7 December 1941 and 2 September 1945 or whose achievement or service, during that period, was confirmed by documents executed prior to 1 July 1947.  An award of the Combat Infantryman Badge or the Combat Medical Badge is considered to be a citation in orders.  This means, in effect, that the Bronze Star Medal is to be awarded to individuals who were authorized either badge for service during World War II.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence that the FSM’s unit commander or the Commanding General of the 80th Division recommended award of the Medal of Honor for the FSM’s actions on 8 February 1945.  However, General Orders show that the Commanding General of Third Army approved award of the Distinguished Service Cross to the FSM for his actions on 8 February 1945. 

2.  In October 1999, a recommendation was submitted to the Army Awards Branch to upgrade the FSM’s award of the Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor.  The Army Decorations Board considered this request on 28 October 1999 and, after due consideration, the Army Decorations Board determined that the “the degree of action and the service rendered” by the FSM did not meet the criteria for the proposed award of the Medal of Honor.  The Commanding General of PERSCOM disapproved award of the Medal of Honor on behalf of the Secretary of the Army.

4.  Evidence of record shows the proper award approval authority for the Distinguished Service Cross authorized award of the Distinguished Service Cross to the FSM for his actions on 8 February 1945.  It is also noted that the award approval authority for the Distinguished Service Cross was present in the theater of operations at the time of the FSM’s actions and had access to the applicant’s chain of command and all information concerning the applicant’s actions.  Finally, the Commanding General of Third Army had the option of forwarding a recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor to higher authority instead of approving award of the Distinguished Service Cross, but chose not to do so based on the facts available to him.

5.  This Board generally will not overturn the decision on an award made by the proper approval authority unless there is compelling evidence of error or injustice, especially when a long time has elapsed since the event in question occurred and when the award approval authority was present in the theater of operations at the time of the event.  After examining all of the facts, this Board finds there is no compelling evidence of error or injustice in this case and, as a result, there is no basis for upgrading the applicant’s award of the Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor.

6.  The Board noted the newspaper article submitted by the applicant which announces that awards of Distinguished Service Crosses to Asian-Americans and Native American Pacific Islanders will be reviewed to determine if any should be upgraded to the Medal of Honor.  The Board also noted the newspaper article submitted regarding awards of the Medal of Honor to soldiers of Japanese ancestry.  However, this Board considers each case individually and on its own merit.  As a result, awards received by others or considered and awarded by other boards and commissions are not a basis for the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to grant an award, particularly an award of the Medal of Honor.

7.  This Board wants the FSM’s widow, the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action by the ABCMR in no way diminishes the extraordinary heroism and sacrifice by the FSM in service to the United States.  His actions on 8 February 1945 were recognized with this Nation’s second highest decoration for heroism in action against an armed enemy.  The FSM’s next of kin and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms and the recognition of his heroism.

8.  Orders show the FSM was wounded twice as a result of hostile action; therefore, he is entitled to correction of his records to show award of the Purple Heart (First Oak Leaf Cluster).

2.  The FSM’s WD AGO 53-55, incorrectly shows the entry Distinguished Unit Badge” in item 33 (Decorations and Citations).  Orders show the FSM was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.  Therefore, item 33 of his WD AGO Form 53-55 should be corrected to show award of the Distinguished Service Cross.

3.  Records show the FSM was awarded the Combat Medical Badge during World War II; therefore, he is entitled to award of the Bronze Star Medal and correction of his records to show award of the Bronze Star Medal.

4. In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by deleting the entry “Distinguished Unit Badge GO #60 18 MAR45” in item 33 of his WD AGO 53-55;

	b.  by adding the entry “Distinguished Service Cross Third Army GO #60 18 MAR 45” in item 33;

	c.  by showing the FSM was awarded the Purple Heart (First Oak Leaf Cluster) in item 33 (Decorations and Citations) of his WD AGO 53-55; and

	d.  by awarding the FSM the Bronze Star Medal based on award of the Combat Medical Badge and correcting his records to show this award.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Stanley Kelley____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036734	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000808	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19451115	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-365	
DISCHARGE REASON	DEMOBILIZATION	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR SCHNEIDER	
ISSUES         1.	107.000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.