IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000321 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his military records to show that he was promoted to sergeant. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he was promoted from corporal to sergeant but it was never recorded in his service record. 3. The applicant provides copies of his Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 214), company training schedules, three notarized statements from comrades, and three photographs. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's military records are not available for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service member's records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that his records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, there are sufficient documents available to conduct a fair and impartial review of this specific request. 3. On 7 December 1950, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. He was subsequently assigned for duty in the Republic of Korea where he participated in two campaigns before his return to the United States. 4. The Morning Report (DA Form 1) dated 13 February 1952, shows that the applicant was promoted to corporal (temporary) on Orders Number 5, 58th Ordnance Company. 5. DA Form 1, dated 29 February 1952, shows that he applicant was still a corporal when his duty status changed from temporary duty to duty. 6. The applicant has provided copies of the 58th Ordnance Ammunition Company Training Schedule for the periods 7 to 12 January 1952 and 4 to 9 March 1952. The earlier schedule lists the applicant with the rank of private first class and the later schedule lists him as a sergeant. 7. Special Orders Number 275, 314th Ordnance Group, dated 22 October 1952, show the applicant as a corporal assigned with the 58th Ordnance Company. 8. Special Orders Number 274, Fort Custer, Michigan, dated 21 November 1952, identifies the applicant as a corporal. 9. On 22 November 1952, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Enlisted Reserve Component. Item 3 (Rank) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows him as a corporal with a date of rank of 13 February 1952. 10. The three notarized statements provided by the applicant are identical in their content. They state their knowledge of the training schedules for 7 to 12 January and for 4 to 9 March 1952 and that the applicant is listed as a sergeant on the later schedule. 11. The photographs provided by the applicant are of very poor picture quality and do not provide a distinguishable image of his rank. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Morning reports and special orders show that the applicant was promoted to corporal on 13 February 1952 and was still a corporal as late as 22 October 1952. There are no available orders or other substantiating evidence showing that he was promoted to sergeant. Also, if he had been promoted to sergeant, there is no evidence showing that he still held that rank when discharged. 2. The training schedule dated 4 to 9 March 1952 that shows the applicant as a sergeant is not conclusive evidence, particularly since he was promoted to corporal only 20 days earlier. The three identical statements from the applicant’s comrades simply confirm what the training schedule shows. However, they do not provide any additional information or proof that the applicant was actually promoted to sergeant. 3. In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _ ___x____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20070016793 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080000321 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1