MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 July 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039967

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 Report of Separation, item 3 be corrected to read “Top Sergeant.”

APPLICANT STATES:  That his promotion was not shown on his Report of Separation.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the applicant was not able to obtain any significant evidence to support his claim that he was promoted to the rank of “Top Sergeant” until recently when the book Spearhead was published.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire in 1973.  The information contained herein was obtained from documents provided by the applicant.

The applicant was inducted into the Army on 11 February 1941.  He served in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater of Operations.  He was separated on 6 August 1945.  His WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, item 3 shows his grade as Staff Sergeant.  Item 38 is partially illegible but does indicate that he had held a higher grade.  Medical treatment records dated 16 and 25 April 1944 and 26 July 1944 show his rank as Staff Sergeant.  His WD AGO Form 38, Report of Physical Examination of Enlisted Personnel Prior to Discharge, Release from Active Duty or Retirement, dated 5 August 1945 shows his rank as Staff Sergeant.  His final pay record shows his rank as Staff Sergeant.

The applicant provides three pages from the book Spearhead:  A Complete History of Merrill’s Marauder Rangers, published by Galahad Press, Baltimore, MD in 1999.  Page 415 is headed “THE BATTLE OF NHPUM GA.”  The first sentence reads “Sergeant R___ (the applicant) (who had just been promoted to top sergeant to take the place of Sergeant S___, who had been killed the day before)…”

From 1 September 1942 through 31 July 1948, the enlisted grade structure consisted of seven grades:  

    Grade 7 – Private	
    Grade 6 – Private First Class
    Grade 5 – Corporal
    Grade 4 – Sergeant
    Grade 3 – Staff Sergeant
    Grade 2 – Technical Sergeant;
    Grade 1 – Master Sergeant/First Sergeant.  (First Sergeant is sometimes informally referred to as “Top Sergeant”)

Army Regulation 615-5, in effect at the time, governed the appointment and reduction of noncommissioned officers and Privates First Class.  In pertinent part, it stated that noncommissioned officers appointed during an emergency under special authorization of the War Department would be temporary appointments.  In order to provide an opportunity to observe the performance of candidates for higher grades, unit commanders were authorized to exceed their authorized allotments in any grade by the number of vacancies that existed in a higher grade pending the promotion of the best-qualified candidate(s).  Depending on the type of unit, the company, battalion or regimental commander was the appointment authority.

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.  All the available official evidence of record shows that the applicant separated in the permanent rank of Staff Sergeant.  There is some evidence on his Report of Separation to show he did hold a higher grade but item 38 is partially illegible and it cannot be determined what this grade was.  It is reasonable to concede that he had held a temporary appointment to a higher grade.  The promotion regulation at the time authorized unit commanders to exceed their authorized allotments in any grade by the number of vacancies that existed in a higher grade with temporary appointments pending the promotion of the best-qualified candidate.

2.  There is no official evidence of record to show the applicant received a permanent promotion to “Top Sergeant.”  Spearhead in fact implies that it was only a temporary appointment the applicant received.  With his being made “Top Sergeant” just the day after Sergeant S___ was killed, it was unlikely a recommendation for his permanent promotion could have reached the promotion approval authority and been approved in one day.

3.  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

__rjw___  __js____  __ra____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039967	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	131.09	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.