MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            7 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059939

	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. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 military records be corrected to show he received a reserve commission to second lieutenant (2LT), on 8 December 1948.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he should have been appointed a 2LT while in the Army during World War II.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were presumably destroyed or lost during the fire at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  The following information has been extracted from reconstructed records:

A review of the military records available shows the applicant was inducted and entered active duty on 18 September 1942.  In May 1943, he trained in the Army Special Training Program (ASTP) at the State University of Iowa and upon completion was given a recommendation for attendance to the Officer Candidate School on 4 April 1944.  There is nothing further available regarding the applicant’s pursuit to attend Officer Candidate School or denial to do so.

The applicant’s Enlisted Record and Report of Separation (WD AGO 53-55) reveals he was assigned to the Philippines in 1944 and fought in the Luzon and New Guinea battles.  He received a Good Conduct Medal along with the American Theater Service Medal, Asiatic-Pacific the After Service Medal, the Philippine Liberation Ribbon and two overseas bars.

The records further indicate that the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty in the rank of Technician, 5th Class (Grade 5) on 6 January 1946, with an Honorable discharge.  He was credited with 3 years, 3 months, and 13 days of active Federal service.

The records do not reflect nor does the applicant submit evidence that he served on active duty or in the Reserve as either an officer or enlisted man after being honorably discharged on 6 January 1946.  However, on 1 November 1948 the applicant requested a hearing evaluation from the Veterans Administration (VA) in order to apply for an Army Commission.

Subsequently, there is clear and convincing evidence that the applicant applied for an appointment in the Reserve Officer’s Corps; but his application for this appointment was denied for what appears to be medically related reasons.

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 has failed to provide evidence that there was an error or injustice in denying his application for a direct commission to 2LT.

2.  There is no evidence nor has the applicant provided evidence that a request for a direct commission to 2LT was ever submitted and denied while the applicant was on the active duty military rolls nor is there evidence that the applicant was eligible.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient for the Board to grant relief.

4.  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

___jpi ___  ___rks __  ___rvo __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059939	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/03/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  14	102.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.