MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 February 2002 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059455

	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. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 the Board erred when it reported that he served as an interpreter because his letters show that he served in combat.  In support of his application he submits copies of more V - Mail correspondence to his brother.  These letters are dated 15 January and 5 February 1945.  He re-submits the 6 February 1945 letter, which was quoted in the previous decisional document.  He also submits a copy of an undated letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that refers to his service medical records.  He cites this as proof that the VA had his medical records.  An associated decision from the Court of Veterans Appeals notes that, in April 1981, the applicant applied for service connection for frozen feet.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in a decisional document prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2000045620) on 31 October 2000.

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

The applicant’s discharge certificate (WD AGO Form 53-55) indicates that he was authorized the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).

The 15 January and 5 February 1945 letters are apparently offered as proof that the applicant served in combat.  The 6 February 1945 letter written from a clearing station in France, states “…I heard something overhead and as I hit the ground the palm of my right hand landed right on an open can, sharp side up.  It’s only a flesh wound that has been stitched up yesterday with three stitches.  I’ll probably be here for a few days.…”

An 18 January 2002 letter from the applicant states “…A Nazi plane flew overhead….”  

During the processing of this case the historical files of the applicant’s unit were searched at the National Archives.  This search failed to locate any information to substantiate the applicant’s appeal.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against an enemy or 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 by a medical officer, and the medical treatment must have been made a matter of official record

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for 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 that was not in the record at the 
time of the Board’s prior consideration.  This includes but is not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than one 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 with 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 Board notes the applicant’s CIB and considers that, in reporting that his military occupational specialty was “interpreter”, the members of the previous panel did not mean to imply that the applicant had not served in combat.  The previous decisional document simply reflected information that was available.  However, that issue is not relevant to the award of the Purple Heart.  Having served in combat or simply sustaining an injury in a combat zone does not qualify an individual for the Purple Heart. 

2.  The applicant is not entitled to an award of the Purple Heart because this situation does not meet the regulatory requirement in that there is no record of medical treatment for a wound sustained while in action against an enemy or as a result of hostile action.  If the applicant believes that the VA has copies of service medical records that substantiate his case, he should ask the VA to forward them here.  Currently, the VA will not forward records here based solely on the Board’s request.

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

__GDP __  __TAP__  ___MHM_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059455	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.