IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 October 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080012370 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, in effect, that his rank be changed from a S/Sgt to a T/Sgt. 2. The applicant states that platoon sergeants were promoted to T/Sgt. However, he was not available to receive his promotion because he was wounded and hospitalized in Italy at that time. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his WD AGO Form 53-55, his Soldier’s Discharge Record, and excerpts from the history of the Third Infantry Division in support of his application. 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 to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire. This case is being considered using reconstructed records that primarily consist of the applicant’s separation document. 3. The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 shows that he was inducted into the Army and entered active duty on 13 February 1941. It further shows that he served in the European-African-Middle Eastern Theater of Operations from 8 November 1942 through 30 March 1945. 4. The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 further shows that he was honorably separated from active duty on 3 June 1945. Item 3 (Grade) shows he held the rank of S/Sgt (Staff Sergeant) on the date of his separation and Item 38 (Highest Grade Held) confirms that Staff Sergeant was the highest rank he held while serving on active duty. 5. Item 30, Military Occupational Specialty and No., has Platoon Sergeant entered. 6. Item 34, Wounds Received In Action, has Wounded in Action in Italy 18 Sept 43 entered. 7. The grade structure during the applicant’s tenure on active duty was as follows: Grade 1 Master Sergeant and First Sergeant Grade 2 Technical Sergeant Grade 3 Staff Sergeant and Technician 3rd Class Grade 4 Sergeant and Technician 4th Class Grade 5 Corporal & Technician 5th Class Grade 6 Private First Class Grade 7 Private 8. The few reconstructed records all show the applicant’s last grade, rank, or rating was Staff Sergeant. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that his record should be corrected to show the rank of Technical Sergeant was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. The applicant’s properly constituted separation document confirms he held the rank of Staff Sergeant on the date of his separation, and that this was the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty. 3. There is no available evidence to show the applicant was recommended for promotion to Technical Sergeant, or that he was ever selected for or promoted to this rank by a proper promotion authority. 4. The applicant’s contention that he was wounded in Italy is supported by the entry in Item 34 of his separation document. However, the applicant was wounded on 18 September 1943 and did not leave the EAME Theater of Operations until 30 March 1945. While the duration of the applicant’s hospitalization is not a matter of record, the applicant remained in the theater almost a year and a half after he was wounded before departing. 5. While Item 30, Military Occupational Specialty and No., of the applicant’s separation document shows he was serving as a Platoon Sergeant, it was not unusual during World War II for Soldiers to serve in higher ranking positions due to casualties during a battle or battles. However, a Soldier required promotion orders in order to hold the higher grade in which he was performing duties. 6. In view of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence in which to grant the applicant’s request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __X______ ___X___ ___X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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. 2. The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation. The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms. _______ _ 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) AR20080012370 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1