MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           22 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999034640

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward   		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 application to correct his records to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart for a wound sustained in March 1945.

APPLICANT STATES: That he believes the previously submitted statement from his company commander should be evidence enough that he was wounded and an adequate explanation as to why he was not sent to the rear where he could have been treated by a doctor.  He submits an extract from a unit history that describes the actions of the company commander (the applicant’s earlier witness) at the time of the incident in question. 

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 on 25 October 1995 (COPY ATTACHED).

The unit history describing the actions of the unit commander is new evidence that requires Board consideration.  

The unit history states that the applicant’s witness was reassigned from the
1st Battalion S-2 (intelligence officer) slot to command “A” Company.  The next day “The Japanese  sprayed the area with a knee mortar  One shell exploded near McG_____’s right leg.  The wound was extremely painful and prevented him from moving.  Pfc. John P_____  left his protected firing position and ran forward and  delivered well-aimed automatic rifle fire  this permitted McG_____ and his fellow soldier to crawl back to safety.  (The company commander) asked McG_____ if he could stay because he needed him.”
     
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.  Although the unit history discusses the former company commander who offered the earlier statement in support of the applicant’s request, it is silent on the subject of the applicant’s being wounded.

2.  However, the description of the wounding of McG_____, who the same commander asked to stay because he was needed, confirms the tactical urgency of the situation was as serious as it was described by the applicant to account for his not receiving medical attention for his numerous fragment wounds only from the company medic.

3.  The statement by the former unit commander to the effect that the applicant was wounded was considered by the previous Board panel and it is considered by the members of this panel.  However, the statements of individuals are inadequate as the principle basis for an award of the Purple Heart because they do not fulfill the regulatory requirement that there be a record of treatment by a medical officer.  Such statements are, however, normally accepted as a substantiation of the combat or the enemy origin of a wound for which there is a record of treatment.

4.  The Board also notes that, although the applicant has offered an explanation for there not being a record of treatment, he has offered none for the failure of the reports of his separation physical examination or his subsequent 1951 pre-commissioning physical examination to mention either shrapnel wounds or scars.  And this is so, despite the mention of a childhood scar.

5.  The Board also notes that the unit history does not describe the incident involving the applicant, even though the company commander’s narrative about the applicant seems very similar to the history’s description of the incident involving McG_____ and Pfc. P____.

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

6.  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

__JMA __  __TSK___  __AAO__  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034640	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990322	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.