MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 November 2002   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074149

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  In effect, award of the Medal of Honor or a valorous medal for his actions during World War II.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is appealing the denial of an award of the Medal of Honor by the Army Decorations Board.  He contends that his actions in Italy during World War II justify a medal for valor.  He states that while on patrol during the Anzio operation he rescued a wounded soldier from a live mine field.  He also contends that “others” received credit for his actions and received decorations related to the rescue of the wounded soldier from the mine field.  

In support of his application, he submits a letter, dated 10 April 2002, from the Military Awards Branch; a letter, dated 24 April 2002, from a Member of Congress; an incomplete and undated DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award); a partial copy of a medical record; the proceedings of a Board of Medical Officers, dated 9 September 1944; an unidentified article about the applicant; a personal statement regarding the incident near Anzio, Italy; a document titled, “This page to A very special few”; 20 letters in support of his claim; a letter, date 27 June 2000, from the Military Awards Branch; a letter titled, “The General Forgot to Give Me a Medal”, dated 10 March 1999; a letter, dated 12 June 2000, from a Member of Congress; and a newspaper article, dated 20 January 1944. 
      
EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed or lost during the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show that the applicant was inducted on 23 April 1943.  He served as a rifleman in the European Theater of Operations from 21 October 1943 to approximately October 1944.  On 24 February 1945, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of disability.  

The applicant’s WD AGO Form 55 (Enlisted Record), which was authenticated in his own hand, does not show the Medal of Honor or any valorous decoration as authorized awards.   

There are no orders in the available records which show that the applicant was awarded the Medal of Honor.  There is no evidence in his records that he was recommended for award of the Medal of Honor.

There are no orders in the available records for any medal for valor.

A recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor was submitted under the provisions of Section 1130, Title 10, United States Code, by a Member of Congress to the Secretary of the Army for consideration.

On 21 June 2001, the Army Decorations Board determined that the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the criteria for award of the Medal of Honor.  The Commanding General, United States Total Army Personnel Command, on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, disapproved the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor. 

During its deliberations on 21 June 2001, the Army Decorations Board did not recommend award of another decoration instead of the Medal of Honor for the applicant’s actions during World War II.

On 20 November 2001, a Member of Congress submitted a letter to the Army Decorations Board, on behalf of the applicant, requesting reconsideration for award of the Medal of Honor.  On 10 December 2001, the Army Decorations Board determined that there was no new or substantial evidence to support a request for reconsideration by that Board.

On 3 April 2002, a Member of Congress submitted another letter to the Army Decorations Board, on behalf of the applicant, requesting reconsideration for award of the Medal of Honor.  On 10 April 2002, the Army Decorations Board determined that there was no new or substantial evidence to support a request for reconsideration by that Board.

The applicant provided numerous statements from soldiers at the time in question attesting that they have memories of the applicant pulling a wounded soldier out of the mine field on Anzio Beach Head during World War II.

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.

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.

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.

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 considered the applicant’s contentions that he should have been awarded the Medal of Honor or another unspecified award for valor.  The Board reviewed all of the evidence submitted by the applicant. 

2.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has provided no evidence, which shows that he was recommended for award of the Medal of Honor by his chain of command at the time of his actions during World War II.

3.  The Board also noted the fact that the applicant’s chain of command, to include his unit commander, was in the tactical area of operations at the time in question and had the authority to recommend the applicant for an award up to and including the Medal of Honor, had the members of the chain of command determined such recognition was appropriate.  However, there is no evidence, and the applicant has provided no evidence, that he was recommended for award of a decoration for valor or achievement.       
 
4.  The Board also noted that the applicant has provided no evidence from a member of his chain of command or from an eyewitness who was present at the events in question on the Anzio Beach Head.  

5.  Based on all of the foregoing the Board determined:

a.  There is insufficient evidence on which to base an award of the Medal of Honor in this case.
	
	b.  There is insufficient evidence on which to base an award for valor in this case.

6.  The Board noted the contention that other soldiers received credit for the applicant’s actions and received decorations related to the rescue of the wounded soldier from the mine field.  However, the applicant has provided no evidence which shows that other soldiers were credited with the rescue of the wounded soldier from the mine field or that other soldiers received decorations for actions performed by the applicant.

7.  While the decision of the Board is not favorable in this case, the Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the service and sacrifice by the applicant during World War II.

8.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

9.  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

AAO___  JPI_____  RKS_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074149	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021114	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.0001	
2.	107.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.