MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 December 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047746

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James P. Huber		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner 		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his military records by awarding him the Purple Heart.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he sustained an ear injury from the concussion of an enemy mortar or artillery shell.  He submits photocopies of field medical record tags to substantiate his case.  He states that the Department of Veteran Affairs has rated his ear condition as 20 percent disabling and questions whether this qualifies him for the Purple heart. 

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2000041072) on 15 August 2000.

The applicant’s submission is new evidence that requires Board consideration.

The field medical record tags show that in May 1945 the applicant sought treatment at a battalion aid station for “Recurrent Otitis Media, Draining Left Ear.” He was transferred to a field hospital and then to an evacuation hospital with the same diagnosis.  In each case the Line of Duty Blocks are marked “Yes.” 

The MedicineNet.Com  Medical Dictionary describes otitis media as an inflammation of the middle ear.  Otitis media can be acute or chronic.  Acute otitis media is usually of rapid onset and short duration.  Acute otitis media typically causes fluid accumulation in the middle ear together with signs or symptoms of ear infection; a bulging eardrum usually accompanied by pain, or a perforated eardrum, often with drainage of purulent material (pus).  Chronic otitis media is a persistent inflammation of the middle ear. This condition can cause ongoing damage to the middle ear and eardrum and there may be continuing drainage through a hole in the eardrum.

Examination of World War II medical records, and especially filed medical record tags shows that line of duty determinations were not normally entered for battle casualties.  It was unnecessary to make a line of duty determination for soldiers wounded in action or as the result of enemy action because they were clearly identified as such.  The Line of Duty block on the field medical record tags of soldiers wounded in combat or as the result of enemy action bore entries such as WIA,” “LWA” meaning lightly wounded in action or SWA for slightly wounded in action or were simply designated “Battle Casualty.”

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The medical records indicate that the applicant was treated for an ear infection.  There is no substantiating evidence that he was treated for a wound received while he was in action against the enemy or as the result of enemy action.

2.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  Even if the VA does consider the applicant’s condition to be combat related that does not, in itself, establish eligibility for the Purple Heart.  It does not meet the regulatory requirement that there be a record of treatment for a wound sustained while in action against the enemy or as the result of enemy action. 

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JPH__  __RJW      _KLW          DENY APPLICATION

	Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction 
	of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047746	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001219	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.