MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 May 2003 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083888

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 the rank of technician 5th Grade (Tec 5). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, the rank of technician 4th Grade (Tec 4) listed on his separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) is incorrect.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his WD AGO Form 53-55 and a Letter of Commendation. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant’s military records were lost or destroyed in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  The information herein was gleaned from a copy of his WD AGO Form 53-55 and the other documents submitted with the application.  

The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 confirms that he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 3 May 1945, and that he continuously served on active duty for 1 year, 7 months, and 19 days until being honorably separated on 20 December 1946.  Item 3 (Grade) of this document contains the entry Tec 4 indicating that he held the rank of PFC on the date of his separation.  Item 38 (Highest Grade Held) contains the entry Tec 4, which indicates that the highest rank he attained, held, and served in while on active duty was Tec 4.  

The separation document also confirms that the applicant served in the Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO), from 31 October 1945 to 18 October 1946.  Item 33 (Decorations and Citations) shows that he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:  Army Commendation Ribbon; Asiatic Pacific Theater Ribbon; World War II Victory Medal; Good Conduct Medal; and Army Of Occupation Medal (Japan).

The applicant provided a Letter of Commendation, dated 19 July 1946, signed by the Commanding General of the 1st Cavalry Division.  The rank shown in this document for the applicant was Tec 5. 

Army Technical Manual 12-235 prescribed the policy and procedure for preparing separation certificates and documents for enlisted personnel discharged, relieved from active duty, or transferred to a Reserve component.  Section VI, paragraph 24, stated that the grade held at the time of separation would be entered on the separation certificate and associated documents.  In addition, the regulation provided for entering the highest grade attained, held, and served in on active duty in Item 38 (Highest Grade Held) of the WD AGO 53-55.  In the grade structure in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, the Tec 4 grade was comparable to a sergeant and was one grade higher than Tec 5, which was comparable to a corporal.  

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that his military records be corrected to show the rank of Tec 5.  However, it finds there is insufficient evidence to support the requested relief, and that such relief would in fact result in the applicant being awarded a lower grade than is currently listed in his separation document. 

2.  The available evidence does includes a properly constituted WD AGO Form 53-55, which was issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his release from active duty.  This document confirms that the applicant held the rank of 
Tec 4 on that date, and that this was the highest rank he attained, held, and served in while on active duty.  

3.  Under the enlisted grade structure in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge, the grade Tec 4 was comparable to a sergeant and was in fact one grade higher than Tec 5, which was only comparable to a corporal.  Thus, approval of the applicant’s request would in fact result in his being reduced one grade.  Under the Board’s current policy, it will not take action that results in a negative outcome for the applicant.  

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

___jm___  ___lds___  ___tbr __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083888	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/05/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  307	129.0500	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.