MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 February 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059620

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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:  In two separate applications, that his records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the rank of corporal on 1 January 1942 and to the rank of sergeant on 5 January 1945.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that during World War II, any driver to the commanding officer must be a corporal or higher in rank.  He also states that according to a circular from the Headquarters of General Douglas McArthur, all personnel recovered during the liberation of the Philippine Islands must be promoted to the next rank. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from reconstructed personnel records.

He entered the Army on 7 March 1941, at Fort William McKinley in the Philippine Islands, for 3 years in the rank of private (E-1).  He was assigned to Company E, 12th Medical Regiment and he successfully completed his training as an ambulance driver.

He was honorably discharged in the rank of private on 4 January 1945 after he completed 3 years, 9 months and 28 days of total active service.

He reenlisted in the Army in the rank of private on 5 January 1945, and he was assigned as a driver in Company A, 6th Military Police Battalion.

His Enlisted Record and Report of Separation (WD AGO Form 53-55) shows that he was honorably discharged on 30 June 1946 in the rank of private first class (E-3).

A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant was ever promoted beyond the rank of private first class while he was in the Army.

On 31 October 1945, the War Department announced a new promotion policy for officers being released from active duty as the result of the demobilization after World War II.  This guidance was modified on 13 December 1945, and was published as War Department Circular 10, dated 11 January 1946.  These documents, in pertinent part, provided for the terminal leave promotions of certain officers to the next higher rank (from first lieutenant through colonel).  Officers were required to have held their prior rank a specified period of time.  In 

the case of promotions from first lieutenant to captain, the period was 18 months. However, the circular also provided that officers would be given 50 percent credit for all time spent in the lower rank overseas.  The officer's narrative efficiency ratings would be converted to a numerical rating.  Numerical ratings would be converted to a narrative rating, then an efficiency index score (points).  (Note: Ratings between 3.5 and 5.49 were converted to an excellent narrative rating.)  To be promoted, the officer's combined efficiency index was required to be 40 points or higher for all rated periods while on active duty.  For officers already released from active duty, their cases would be referred to the War Department for resolution.  Promotions would be effective the date the officer departed on terminal leave.

Special Regulation 615-25-50, then in effect, provided the criteria for permanent promotion to pay grade E-4.  It states, in pertinent part, that Regular Army enlisted personnel below grade E-4 may be promoted to permanent grade E-4 by the appropriate promotion authority provided the individual is in a promotable status; has 20 months time in service; holds a temporary grade of E-4 or higher; achieves a standard score of 85 or higher on the grade E-4 Military Proficiency Tests; and is recommended by his company or similar commander.

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 actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, there is no evidence of record nor has he submitted any evidence to show that all personnel recovered during the liberation of the Philippine Islands were promoted to the next higher rank, and the War Department Circular to which he refers in his application to this Board pertained to officers ranking between first lieutenant through colonel.

3.  In accordance with the applicable regulation, then in effect, he may have met most of the criteria to be promoted to the rank of corporal.  However, the applicant has submitted no evidence to show that his company commander or similar commander ever recommended him.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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

___fe ___  __mkp___  __le ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059620	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/02/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  302	120.0000	
2.  307	129.0600	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.