PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           17 January 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064276

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his record be corrected to show he served as a tanker as opposed to a tailor, as is listed in his separation document
(DD Form 214). 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his separation document incorrectly shows he was trained and served as a tailor.  He states that he never spent a day of military career as a tailor and throughout his military service he served as a tank commander, tank gunner, and 50 caliber machine gunner.  In addition, he states that his military schools were omitted from his separation document and that he had completed a noncommissioned officer (NCO) academy in 1952, tank gunner school in 1953, and tank commander school in 1953.  Further, he states that his record of assignment will show that he served in tank companies throughout his military service and he finally adds that he did not earn the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) and other awards for being a tailor.  The applicant indicates that as he nears his senior years, it has become important to him to have his military records accurately reflect the service he performed and he requests a new 
DD Form 214 be issued that reflects his service accurately.

4.  The applicant’s counsel, a veterans service officer, contends in letters to a Member of Congress, that in effect, the applicant served his entire tour in Korea as a tank commander and tank gunner.  He was always stationed forward in battle as was the military doctrine for tank companies in infantry regiments at the time and the fact that he earned the CIB and Korean Service Ribbon with 
1 bronze service star clearly establishes that he served in combat in Korea. 

5.  Counsel also claims that when the applicant was inducted he was erroneously listed as a tailor and his record incorrectly indicates that he completed a tailor course at the Quartermaster School.  He contends these entries were administrative errors and that the applicant never attended a tailor course or served as a tailor while on active duty.  Upon his induction, the applicant was immediately sent to combat training and then overseas to serve in combat.  The clerical errors in his record are not the applicant’s fault and the units in which he served and the awards he received should be more than sufficient evidence to show that he served in combat as a tanker.  Counsel also claims that the applicant has shown him photo albums that contain many pictures of the applicant in his tank, around his tank, and forward on enemy lines.  In addition, these photos include some gruesome pictures of the applicant standing in a defensive position while dead enemy lay scattered about.  

6.  Counsel also expresses his dissatisfaction with the processing of the applicant’s case by the Board staff that resulted in the applicant being issued a standard letter that indicated that his records were lost in a fire.  He also comments that as a result of the applicant’s combat service he received severe frostbite and this resulted in his being granted a service connected disability from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  

7.  Finally, counsel offers as evidence, a copy of a Christmas program provided by the applicant’s mother that shows the applicant was a tanker.  Counsel concludes by indicating that the applicant is a 100 percent disabled veteran and the evidence more than supports his claim that he served as a tanker and not a tailor, and he expresses his dismay at the Board failing to support his request for relief to this point.  

8.  The applicant’s military records were 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 in that fire.  

9.  The available evidence does include a DD Form 214, that was issued to and authenticated by the applicant on the date of his separation.  This document confirms that he entered active duty on 2 February 1951 and continuously served for 2 years, 11 months, and 15 days, until being honorably separated, in the rank of sergeant first class (SFC), on 16 January 1954.  

10.  The DD Form 214 also shows that the applicant served overseas for 2 years, 2 months, and 4 days, and that his most significant duty assignment was the Tank Company, 8th Infantry Regiment.  This document further indicates that during his active duty tenure, he earned the CIB, Korean Service Ribbon with 
1 bronze service star, Occupation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, and United Nations Service Medal.  

11.  In Block 5 (Qualifications) of the applicant’s DD Form 214, there is no entry in either the “specialty number or symbol” area or the “related civilian occupation and D.O.T. number” area.  However, block 30 (Service Schools) contains an entry that indicates that he attended the Quartermaster School, from April to June 1951, and completed a tailoring course.  There are no other courses or schools listed in this block that would indicate he attended any other service school or course during his active duty tenure. 

12.  In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of a U.S. Government Operator’s Permit (DD Form 513), issued to him on 2 October 1953, which verifies that he was qualified to operate a medium tank and a bulldozer.  

13.  The applicant also provides a copy of Christmas Program for the Heavy Mortar Company and Tank Company of the 8th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Friedberg, Germany.  This program includes a roster of personnel that lists him as a sergeant in the Tank Company, 8th Infantry Regiment.  Finally, copies of photos that are alleged to be the applicant with his tank in Korea and a map extract that indicates that the applicant fought in Korea and specifically at Bloody Ridge were also provided for review.

14.  Chapter 4 prescribes the policy for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM).  It states, in pertinent part, that it is the immediate commander’s decision to award the AGCM based on his personal knowledge of the individual and on the individual’s official records.  It further states that the lack of official disqualifying comment by previous commanders allows that period of service to qualify for use in awarding the AGCM.  It also stipulates that, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950, a period of more than one year is a qualifying period for award of the AGCM.  The available evidence contains no indication that the applicant had committed any infractions that would have disqualified him from receiving the AGCM or that he was ever disqualified for the award by any of his immediate commanders.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s claim that he served as a tanker and not as a tailor during his active duty service.  Notwithstanding the lack of military records and the normal presumption of government regularity applied in those cases lacking military records, the Board finds sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s contention. 

2.  The applicant’s separation document clearly shows that his most significant assignment during his active duty tenure was the Tank Company, 8th Infantry Regiment.  In addition, he has provided independent evidence that confirms that he was qualified to operate a medium tank and that he served in the Tank Company, 8th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Friedberg, Germany.  

3.  In the opinion of the Board, the applicant’s assignment history, coupled with the fact he earned the CIB for his combat service in Korea, more than sufficiently corroborates his claim that he served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 2736 (Tank Commander or Driver) during his tenure on active duty.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to add this qualification as a tanker to block 5 (Qualifications) of his separation document.  

4.  There is no firm evidence to confirm that the current entry in block 30 of the applicant’s DD Form 214, showing that he completed a tailoring course at the Quartermaster School, is incorrect.  However, given the evidence provided that shows that the applicant served as a tanker, the Board finds it reasonable to accept the applicant’s word that he never trained or served on active duty as a tailor.  Therefore, it concludes that it would be appropriate to delete this entry from his separation document at this time. 

5.  The Board does not question the veracity of the applicant’s contention that during his active duty service he attended a NCO academy, tank gunner school, and tank commander school.  However, lacking any documentary evidence to verify his attendance at and completion of these courses, the Board is compelled to deny the applicant’s request to add these courses to his record at this time.  If at anytime, he can provide documents confirming his attendance at and/or completing of these courses, he may reapply to the Board requesting reconsideration of this request. 

6.  The available evidence confirms that the applicant honorably served on active duty for 2 years, 11 months, and 15 days.  Lacking a specific disqualification from any of his unit commanders and given the absence of any derogatory information on file that would preclude him from receiving the award, the Board concludes he is entitled to receive the first award of the AGCM for his qualifying period of service from 2 February 1951 to 16 January 1954.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the individual concerned the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal for his honorable period of service from 2 February 1951 to 
16 January 1954; by adding the entry “2736 (Tank Commander or Driver)” in the specialty number or symbol area of block 5 (Qualifications) of his DD Form 214; by deleting the current entry contained in block 30 of his DD Form 214; and by providing him a corrected separation document that reflects these changes.  

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__JLP __   _ _CJP __  __KWL     GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    __Jennifer L. Prater__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064276	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/01/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1954/01/16	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-360-5	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.