MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            6 June 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001062654

	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. Antoinette Farley.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 WD AGO Form 53-55 (Report of Separation) by showing in item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) Holland instead of Germany, and in item 34 (Wounds Received in Action), wounded in left knee, right side, and in right hip.  In essence, the applicant also requests that he receive the following authorized awards, the Expert Badge with Carbine Bar, the Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar and the World War II Honorable Service Lapel Button.

APPLICANT STATES:  In a letter written to the Board on 14 August 2001, shortly after the Board’s initial decision was received by the applicant, the applicant’s wife wrote that she respects the Board highly and with great disappointment, accepts the decision in denying him the Purple Heart and other medals.  She further writes that the Board must understand her feelings, he served his country from October 1942 until March 1945.  He voluntarily went into the Paratroops (I Company, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division) and participated in the invasion of Holland in September 1944, when the Allied Troops liberated Holland from Germany.  She claims that, on the 23rd of September, he was wounded and his family did not know for five and one half weeks if he was dead or alive.  He then informed them that he had been in combat, was wounded and was in eleven hospitals in Belgium and England.  She points out that he never received any medals, and, when he sought help from the Veteran Affairs, he was denied.  She adds that his Military Records were destroyed or lost in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.  Accordingly, he only has the German bullet that was taken from his hip, a piece of goose fat in his side that was used to perform plastic surgery where the German bullet destroyed the tissue, and the large scar from a knee replacement in March, which could possibly be the result of the bullet that went under the knee cap and destroyed the cartilage.  The letter also requests the following medals and awards be issued to him: the Netherlands Orange Lanyard, the World War II Victory Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the Expert Badge with Carbine Bar, the Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar and the World War II Honorable Service Lapel Button and the European-African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with 2 bronze service stars as mentioned in the response to his previous case.  She also attaches a copy of his DD Form 
215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) dated 24 August 2001.

In a cover letter written by the applicant’s wife, on 5 October 2001, which is essentially a letter of transmittal for the DD Form 149 dated 1 October 2001, the applicant’s wife acknowledges having received some of the medals with exception of the Good Conduct Medal, the Expert Badge with Carbine Bar, the Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar and the World War II Honorable Service Lapel Button.  She adds four V-Mail letters sent to her by her husband in September and October 1944 in which he shares some health and tour experiences.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the original Memorandum of 
Consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2001058758) on 19 July 2001.  

The applicant’s submissions are new evidence that requires the Board’s consideration. 

The applicant’s wife provides several War and Navy Department V-Mail letters sent to her from the applicant dated 29 September, 7, 14, 17 and 
29 October 1944, during his tour overseas.  The transmittals are not all clearly readable.  In his 29 September 1944, V-Mail letter to his wife, the applicant refers to himself as a patient in the hospital located somewhere in France, but provides no other specifics as to the type of injuries, wounds or treatment he was receiving.  He also tells his wife that he was in combat and had been in three countries Holland, Belgium and France.  Although the copies of the V-Mail letters his wife submitted to the Board are not entirely legible, he, apparently did not clearly state in any of them that he had been wounded.

His wife also submits a copy of his DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), dated 24 August 2001, which corrects the applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 (Report of Separation) by showing in item 32 the deletion of the word “Germany” and adding “the Rhineland Campaign”.  Also in item 33 the deletion of the wording “1 Bronze Star on European-African-Middle Eastern Theater Medal” and by adding the wording for award of the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with one Bronze Service Star and Bronze Arrowhead, the World War II Victory Medal, and the Netherlands Orange Lanyard.  The applicant’s WD AGO 53-55 dated 3 March 1945, shows he had already been awarded the Good Conduct Medal, the Expert Badge with Carbine Bar, the Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar and had been issued the Lapel Button.  This DD Form 215 is the result of the decision reached by the Board on 19 July 2001.

As noted in the previous MOC, the medical records reviewed by a 31 October 1944 physical disposition board showed that he was in combat for one week in Holland.  After his unit was shelled by German artillery he remembered an explosion and later awoke in the battalion aid station.  He was evacuated and eventually medically discharged for combat incurred psychoneurosis, mixed type, moderately severe.  

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained while in action against an opposing armed force of a foreign country is which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.  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 acknowledges the statements and letters provided by the applicant’s wife in his behalf.  However, a review of the applicant’s V-Mail letters provided no evidence that the applicant underwent medical treatment for wounds received as a result of hostile action.  

2.  The previous Board determined that the correct campaign was not Holland or Germany, but the Rhineland Campaign in accordance with Department of Army Pamphlet 672-1, which is based on his period of service with the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment in the European Theater of Operation (ETO).  

3.  Awards previously authorized can be obtained through a separate activity, since the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) does not issue awards and decorations.  Therefore, the authorized awards may be obtained by submitting a request in writing to the following address:  National Personnel Records Center, ATTN; Army Medals, 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63132-5100.  

4.  Therefore, given the overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, there is insufficient evidence for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  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

___SK __  __JTM __  __TEO __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062654	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020606	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.