MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           11 OCTOBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059632

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning 		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 effect, that his rank of “Sergeant T4” be restored and that he be advanced to the rank of “Staff Sergeant.”  He also requests any back pay associated with those grades.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was inducted into the Army and “immediately became a cook.”  He notes that he “rose to be the 1st Cook” and was promoted to the rank of “Sergeant T4” prior to being deployed overseas.  While overseas the applicant indicated that he performed duties as the “acting mess sgt” and contends that he should have been promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant.  The applicant states that once the war in Europe ended his unit members were authorized “a ten day furlough….”  However, his request for leave was denied by his unit commander who told him “he needed to stay put as he had no one to take over [his] duties.”  The applicant indicated that he wanted to see his “blood brother” who was in Italy.  The applicant then left Munich, Germany enroute to Italy.  However, because of weather problems he never got any further than Paris and when he returned to his unit he was reduced in rank to private.  

He states that he has seen other veterans receive their Purple Hearts and Unit Citations 30 or 40 years later and believes his “case is also justifiable….”  In support of his request he submits statements from two individuals who served with him during World War II and indicate that the applicant is entitled to have his rank restored.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were not available.  Although the applicant was informed, in April 2001, that his “records are currently in use at another agency,” in all likelihood they were destroyed during the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center.  A July 2001 letter from the Nation Personnel Records Center informed the applicant of that possibility.  Information contained herein was reconstructed from alternative sources and information provided by the applicant.

The applicant was inducted on 4 February 1943 and entered active duty on 
11 February 1943.  In correspondence to the Board, the applicant indicates he departed the United States enroute to Europe in December 1944.  This information is confirmed in item 26 (service outside continental U.S. and return) of the applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation).  

The applicant remained overseas until January 1946 when he returned to the United States and was discharged as a result of demobilization on 22 January 1946.  His WD AGO Form 53-55, which he authenticated with his signature and thumb print, indicates that the highest grade he held while on active duty was “T/4” and that he was separated as a private.  

His final payment voucher, which he also authenticated, indicates his rank at the time of separation was private.

The two letters, submitted by the applicant in support of his request, were authored in 2001.  Both individuals indicated that they served with the applicant during World War II, but neither individual stated that they were witnesses to the events which resulted in the applicant’s reduction from “Sergeant T4” to private.

In 1920 the Army’s number grades was reduced to six pay grades; Master Sergeant (First Grade), Technical Sergeant/First Sergeant (Second Grade), Staff Sergeant (Third Grade), Sergeant (Fourth Grade), Corporal (Fifth Grade), and Private (Sixth Grade).  The grades of technician in the third, fourth and fifth grades were added by War Department Circular Number 5, date 8 January 1942.  
Change 1 to AR 600-35, dated 4 September 1942, added a letter "T" to the formerly prescribed chevrons for grades three, four and five.

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 evidence clearly indicates that the highest grade the applicant held while on active duty was that of “Sergeant T4.”  While the applicant states that he performed duties at a higher grade level, there is no evidence that he was ever recommended for, or promoted, to the grade of Staff Sergeant.  

2.  The Board notes that there has never been a requirement to promote soldiers simply because they may have been performing duties in positions authorized a higher grade level.  

3.  The applicant admits that he was reduced to private when he departed on leave after being denied leave by his commander.  While the applicant may not have agreed with his commander’s rational for denying leave, the fact remains that the applicant admits that he disobeyed his commander.  As such the Board contends the applicant’s commander was well within his authority to reduce the applicant and there is no evidence of error or injustice in this case.  

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 that 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

__JL____  __MDM__  __JAM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059632	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011011	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	112.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.