PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            27 January 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028104

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his War Department (WD) Adjutant General Office (AGO) Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation-Honorable Discharge) be corrected to show he was a private first class/grade 
6 (PFC) on the date of his separation.  In addition, he requests that appropriate consideration be given to the impact this had on his promotion history throughout the remainder of his career.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was promoted to private first class/grade 6, effective 6 September 1946, under special promotion provisions for former prisoners of war (POW), but that this was not known on the day he was discharged and his separation documents indicated that he was discharged in the rank of private/grade 7 (PVT).  He also explains that he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 11 September 1946, in the rank of PVT, and he believes that he would have been allowed to enter as a PFC had it been known at the time that he had been promoted prior to his initial discharge.  He also contends that this could have impacted his promotion history over the course of his entire 
20-year career and that this error resulted in his being deprived proper advancement sequencing, which deprived him of significant benefits.  He admits culpability in this error by declining to accept paperwork related to his POW status from his parents when he was home during a furlough after his return from a POW status. He also indicates that this error was never detected by either him or the Army throughout the rest of his military career.  In support of his application, the applicant enclosed a copy of the promotion letter published on 
6 September 1945, which promoted him to PFC effective the same date; a copy of his WD AGO 53-55; and a copy of a letter to him from the separation center which advised him of his promotion and indicated that a copy had been forwarded to the Adjutant General in Washington D.C. 

4.  There were no military service records on the applicant available to the Board for this review.  However, the evidence of record does include a copy of the 
WD AGO Form 53-55 issued to the applicant upon his discharge on 7 October 1945, and a copy of the Special Order which effected his placement on the retired list on 1 March 1964.  

5.  The WD AGO Form 53-55 shows that the applicant had been inducted into the Army of the United States on 16 April 1943, and that he served on active duty until he was honorably discharged, in the rank of PVT, on 7 October 1945.  It also shows that he earned a Purple Heart Medal; the European African Middle Eastern Service Medal; and the Good Conduct Medal.  In addition, it indicates that he had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 7 days of foreign service in the European Theater of Operations, and that he had participated in the Normandy, Northern France, Rhienland, and Ardennes campaigns.  

6.  The applicant provided a letter published by Army Service Forces, Headquarters, Fourth Service Command, Atlanta, Georgia, dated 6 September 1945, Subject: Promotion of Personnel of Projects P and R.  This letter announced the applicant’s promotion to PFC under special promotion provisions for returned POW.  The applicant also provided a letter addressed to him, dated 16 October 1945, issued by Army Service Forces, Sixth Service Command, Headquarters Separation Center, Fort Lewis, Washington, which transmitted to him a copy of his promotion letter to PFC.  It also indicated that a copy of the promotion letter had been provided to the AGO in Washington D.C.

7.  The evidence of record also includes Special Order Number 288, dated 
22 November 1963, which effected the applicant’s 20 year retirement under the provisions of Section 3913 of Title 10 of the United States Code.  It placed the applicant on the Retired list and transferred him to the Retired Reserve effective 1 March 1964.  At the time of his retirement the applicant had attained the rank of sergeant first class/E-7, which was the grade in which he retired.  

8.  The Adjutant General’s Office of the War Department published a letter, dated 17 August 1945, Subject: Procedure for Processing, Return and Reassignment of Recovered Personnel (Sort Title: POW), which established special promotion . policies for returning POW’s.  It provided for a one grade promotion for returning POW’s if it could be established that:  there was a reasonable presumption that they would have been promoted at some date prior but for their loss to the United States military; that the circumstances surrounding their loss to the military had been honorable; that the individual had not been subsequently promoted; and that the individual concerned could be reasonably expected to perform efficiently in the higher grade.  

9.  Title 32 of the United States Code, Section 3702, commonly referred to as the barring statute, provides the statute of limitations in regard to monetary claims brought against the government.  It states, in pertinent part, that a monetary claim must be received by the official responsible for settling the claim ,or by the agency that conducts the activity from which the claim arises, within 6 years after the claim accrues.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  After carefully examining the available evidence the Board concluded that there was an error in the rank listed for the applicant in his separation document. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board concluded it would be appropriate to correct this error at this time.  

2.  The Board also noted the applicant’s contention that the error to his rank at the conclusion of his first enlistment resulted in his loss of 1 month of PFC pay between his promotion date of 6 September and his separation date of 7 October 1945.  While this is a true statement, the statute of limitations for payment of monetary claims against the government is 6 years, and this has been well exceeded in this case.  Therefore, the Board is unable to provide any effective relief on this issue.  

3.  The Board also evaluated the applicant’s contention that his promotion sequence throughout the remainder of his career was impacted by the original error in his rank.  However, the Board was unable to establish this claim as fact.  Even had the applicant been allowed to reenlist in the rank of PFC, which in itself is not entirely clear, it does not automatically follow that his promotion sequence would have been speeded up as a result. 

4.  The record is clear that subsequent to his initial discharge the applicant was advised by letter that he had been promoted to PFC and should have been aware of this fact at the time he reenlisted.  In addition, given the special promotion policy regarding former POW’s was relatively recent, the applicant had the chance to pursue this rank issue at the time he was processing to reenter the Army.  Therefore, the Board concluded, given the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to correct this error in his record at that time, it is not reasonable for him to expect this Board to resolve this issue now, more than 50 years after the fact.

5.  Further, there were many different promotion policies in effect over the course of the applicant’s 20 year career.  This precludes establishing a direct sequence link between the grade he held when he reenlisted and the rest of his promotion record.  While different promotion policy at the time did have time in grade and time in service minimums, these were not the predominant factors in an individual qualifying for promotion at that time.  The primary guiding principle during this period, especially for noncommissioned officer promotions, was a slot promotion policy.  This meant that promotion to the next grade was contingent on there being an available position in the individual’s specialty, in the next higher grade, and in their unit of assignment.  Therefore, the Board could not establish that the initial error in the applicant’s rank had any impact at all on his subsequent promotions.

6.  Additionally, even if the applicant’s claim that his promotion sequence was impacted by the initial error to his rank was true, this monetary claim would also fall under the provisions of the 6 year barring statute, which would prohibit effective relief on this issue.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned held the rank of PFC at the time of his discharge on 7 October 1945.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___sk___  __eja____  ___inw __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Irene N. Wheelwright___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028104	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/01/27	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1945/10/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-365 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Demobilization	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.