PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 December 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059886

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 that he be awarded a second award of the Purple Heart and the Army of Occupation Medal (AOM) of Germany.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should have received a second award of the Purple Heart for frostbite to his feet during World War II and he should have received the AOM (Germany) for his service in that country as well.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his Separation Qualification Record (WD AGO Form 100), a copy of his separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55), and a copy of a Veterans Administration (VA) rating decision indicating that he sustained frostbite to both feet in January 1945.

4.  The applicant’s military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records.  However, information obtained from alternate sources show that he was inducted on 22 November 1943 and entered active duty on 13 December 1943.  He deployed to the European Theater of Operations (ETO) on 7 November 1944 and participated in the Ardennes, Rhineland and Central Europe Campaigns.  He departed the ETO on 28 February 1946 and was transferred to Camp Atterbury, Indiana, where he was honorably discharged on 14 March 1946.  

5.  His report of separation shows that he was wounded on 26 January 1945 in Germany and that he was awarded the Purple Heart, the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater Ribbon with three bronze service stars, the Good Conduct Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal, at the time of separation.  He was subsequently awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) by the Army Reserve Personnel Center in 1992; however, there is no indication that his separation document was ever corrected to reflect those awards.

6.  Information obtained from hospital admission records compiled by the Office of The Surgeon General of the Department of the Army show that the applicant was admitted to a general hospital as a battle casualty on 26 January 1945 and was diagnosed as having a shrapnel wound to the face and frostbite of the foot.

7.  The VA Rating Decision provided by the applicant with his application indicates that the applicant’s service medical records show that he sustained frostbite to both feet in January 1945, that he was treated and that he was returned to duty.  He was given an evaluation of 30% service-connected disability rating for each foot, effective 10 November 1999. 

8.  Army Regulation 600-45, the regulation in effect at the time, governed the award of the Purple Heart.  It provided, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound/injury sustained as a result of hostile action.  Substantiating evidence must be provided to verify that the wound was a result of hostile action, that the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, and that the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.  At the time, the regulation provided that a Purple Heart was authorized for frostbite and it specified that multiple awards were not authorized for wounds/injuries that were treated at the same instant.  

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, currently in effect, 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 a result of hostile action, that the wound must have required treatment by a medical officer, and that the medical treatment was made a matter of official record.  The regulation currently in effect provides that a Purple Heart is not authorized for frostbite and that multiple awards are not authorized for multiple wounds/injuries that are treated at the same time.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 establishes the criteria for award of the AOM.  It states, in pertinent part, that the AOM was established by War Department General Orders 32 in 1946.  It is awarded for 30 consecutive days of service at a normal post of duty while assigned to the Army of Occupation of Germany between 9 May 1945 and 5 May 1955.  Service between 9 May and 8 November 1945 will be counted only if the EAME Campaign Medal was awarded for service before 9 May 1945.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While there is sufficient evidence to show that the applicant did receive frostbite to the feet while in combat, his injury was diagnosed at the same time as his wound to his face was treated.  Accordingly, he was properly awarded one Purple Heart Medal for the wounds/injuries he sustained.  Multiple awards are not authorized for multiple wounds/injuries that are sustained in the same instance/event.  Accordingly, there is no basis to issue him another Purple Heart.

2.  However, the applicant was entitled to receive the award of the AOM (Germany) for his service in that country and it appears that an administrative oversight resulted in his not being awarded that medal.  Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to do so at this time.

3.  Additionally, the applicant was awarded the CIB and BSM and those awards have not been added to his separation documents.  Accordingly, it would be appropriate to do so at this time.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the AOM (Germany) and adding it to his separation document along with awards of the CIB and BSM that were previously issued but not entered onto his separation document.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___jhl___  __mkp___  __ena___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Joann H. Langston____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059886	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/12/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  113	107.0067/AOM	
2.  61	107.0015/PH	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.