RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03018 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was injured in the line of duty. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability compensation decision letters and other documentation in support of his application. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center; therefore, only a limited record exists. According to the applicant’s available records, he served on active duty from 25 Jun 43 to 19 Oct 45 and was credited with 8 months and 13 days of Foreign Service. In accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 600-45, Decorations, dated 22 Sep 43, during the period in question, the PH was awarded for wounds received in action against an enemy of the United States, or as a direct result of an act of such enemy, provided such wound necessitated treatment by a medical officer. For the purpose of awarding the PH, a wound was defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force, element, or agent, sustained as the result of a hostile act of the enemy, or while in action in the face of the enemy. When a person eligible for award of the PH was treated for a wound, the commanding officer of the hospital, or the medical officer who treated the wound, furnished the commanding officer of the wounded person a certificate briefly describing the nature of the wound, and certifying the necessity of treatment. In addition, a wounded soldier’s unsupported statement could be accepted in unusual or extenuating circumstances when, in the opinion of the officer making the award, no corroborative evidence was obtainable. However, the statement would be substantiated if possible. On 13 Sep 11, AFPC/DPSIDRA notified the applicant they were able to verify his entitlement to the American Campaign Medal (ACM) and the World War II Victory Medal (WWIIVM) and his records will be updated accordingly. The applicant’s WD AGO 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge, box 34, Wounds Received in Action is annotated as “none.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDRA recommends denial. The applicant provided an interrogation sheet dated 2 Dec 45, which states he received injuries with the type of injury being “glass in ass.” There is no indication the cause of the injury was a direct result of enemy action. Additionally, the applicant has not provided a detailed personal account, eyewitness statement or medical documentation from the date/timeframe of injury showing that he received an injury due to direct enemy action that required medical treatment. The complete DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Upon being discharged and classified as non-wounded, he assumed this was correct. After becoming a member of the Second Bombardment Association he read about a book that was written by a former member of his unit. He ordered the book and learned he had been injured, so he decided to do some research on his own. He located the archived records from the Second Bombardment mission on 13 Feb 45. The interrogation sheet reflects the type of injuries as “glass in ass.” However, there is no glass on the B-17 bomber. His wound was caused by German “flak” and not “glass in the ass.” The vibration of the plane alone would have shattered glass. Then you add the vibration of a 50 caliber machine gun and you have intense vibration. The applicant states that whoever made that entry was not knowledgeable of the structured design regarding a B-17. In addition, the personnel within the Air Force Recognition Programs office have no knowledge of the B-17 design, especially, if their reason for disapproval is based on “glass in ass.” He states back in those days it was a “joke” if you sustained an injury in the butt because it was considered the lease vulnerable part of the body. After returning from the mission, he was informed by a flight line medic his wound was not serious and he needed to go with his crew to interrogation, and then go to the infirmary shack. After arriving at the infirmary, he cannot remember if his name or serial number was ever taken. However, he does remember being “checked out” and given medication to apply to his wound. The modern day computerized world cannot comprehend the haphazard record keeping back in those days. Zero priority; as personnel back then could cared less; they would just fill in the blanks with anything. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and his response to the Air Force evaluation, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing the PH criteria in effect at the time and considering the documentation submitted by the applicant, we are not persuaded that his injury was the direct result of enemy action or incurred while in action against the enemy, as evidenced by the fact that in Block 34, “Wounds Received in Action” on the WD AGO 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable Discharge, issued in conjunction with his 19 Oct 45 separation, reflects “none.” The personal sacrifice the applicant endured for his country is noted; however, insufficient documentary evidence has been presented to substantiate that he has a qualifying injury that warrants entitlement to the PH. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2011-03018 in Executive Session on 29 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03018 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Military Records. Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSIDRA, Letter, dated 13 Sep 11. Exhibit D. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 21 Oct 11. Exhibit E. Applicant’s Letter, dated 29 Oct 11, w/atchs.