MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 February 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11678
                                              AR1999015602

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Juanita I. Williams		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Patrick Bogenberger		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		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:  That his military records be corrected to show he served in the Army under his own name instead of his brother’s.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he, Francis, served in the Armed Services from May 1947 to November 1948 under his brother’s name (John) because he was under age.  He states that he was barely 16 years old when he enlisted in the Army under his brother’s name and was discharged 18 months later with an honorable discharge.  He has tried to get the matter straightened out with the government;  however, the Veterans Administration (VA) and the draft board in Brooklyn are the only ones to recognize his service in the Army.  

In support of his application he submits letters dated 18 February 1953 and 15 July 1958 from the VA Regional Office, Brooklyn, New York, which certify that “the records of the Veterans Administration disclose that Francis [last name] served in the Armed Forces of the United States under the name of John [last name] from May 20, 1947 to November 19, 1948.”  

He also submits a copy of a Selective Service Card, dated 21 February 1957, which shows both names in question.     

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the fire that occurred at the Records Center in 1973.  The information herein was gleaned from the applicant’s separation documents, which were submitted by him.    

The separation document (WDAGO Form 53) shows that John was born on 4 July 1928 in Brooklyn, New York, and enlisted in the Army on 20 May 1947 at 18 years of age.  He attended the Quartermaster School at Camp Lee, Virginia, served as a supply clerk (no overseas service) and was honorably discharged on 19 November 1948, after 18 months of service at the expiration of his term of service.  The highest grade he attained was private.  His right thumb print and signature appear on the separation document. (NOTE:  In the remarks section of his application (DD Form 149), it appears the applicant has imprinted his fingerprint(s), and he asks that the Board compare his signature on the DD Form 149 with the signature on the separation document, as proof that they were made by the same person).    

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 applicant claims to have served in the Army under his brother’s name and now wants the Army’s records corrected to reflect his name.  To strengthen his case, he submits letters from the VA and his local draft board.  He also offers his fingerprint(s) and signature as proof that in fact he, and not his brother, served on active duty during the period represented by the separation documents he submits.  
 
2.  The Board notes that although he claims he was only 16 years old at the time and was too young to enter the Army, he does not submit a birth certificate or any other evidence of his identity.  

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record, it is necessary for the applicant to show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the alleged entry or omission in the record was in error or unjust.  In the Board’s opinion this requirement has not been met.   

4.  The fact that the VA has recognized his service for the purpose of entitlement to VA benefits is not a basis for changing the Army’s records.  The Board does  not know what evidence the VA considered or the criteria it used to make its determination.  The same holds true for his local draft board.  

5.  This Board is not an investigative body and cannot perform fingerprint or handwriting analyses.  If he believes that his fingerprint(s) or signature reveal the truth of his identity and proves he actually served on active duty, then it is his responsibility to obtain and submit corroborating evidence of a legal or professional nature to support his claim.  

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

____X____  ___X_____  ____X____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11678	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990210	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.