MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            23 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066042

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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:  Reconsideration of his previous request to have his separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) corrected to show that he was promoted to the rank of sergeant (SGT).

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he served with Company A, 359th Infantry Regiment, 90th Infantry Division during combat at the Siegfried Line.  He goes on to state that his SGT told him that he had been promoted to private first class (PFC) and later during combat his SGT/squad leader was killed and the platoon sergeant placed him (the applicant) in charge of the squad and told him that he was promoted to buck SGT.  He further states that he was wounded on 22 February 1945 and was listed as a SGT on the hospital records.  However, when he was discharged it was as a PFC instead of SGT.  He also states that not only should he have been promoted to SGT, he should also have been promoted to the rank of Staff SGT while he was in the hospital.  In support of his application he submits copies of newspaper articles indicating he was a SGT, and contends that it should be sufficient to show he was a SGT.  He also provides a letter from another former soldier in his unit who attest that he knew of the applicant’s promotion at the time.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center fire in St. Louis, Missouri, which destroyed millions of service records.  However, information obtained from reconstructed records show:

He was inducted at Jefferson Barracks, Missouri, on 16 August 1944.  He completed his training as a rifleman and departed for the European Theater of Operations (ETO) on 8 January 1945.  He participated in the Rhineland and Ardennes Campaigns and was wounded on 8 February and 22 February 1945.  He was awarded the Purple Heart for each of his wounds. 

He departed the ETO on 12 June 1945 and was transferred to Fitzsimmons General Hospital in Denver Colorado.  He was advanced to the rank of PFC on 18 July 1945 and remained at Fitzsimmons until he was honorably discharged on 21 February 1947 and was issued a Certificate of Disability for Discharge.

A review of hospital admission records compiled by the Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General, indicates that the applicant was admitted to the hospital on two occasions and on both occasions was admitted in the rank of private.  The applicant’s final pay document indicates that he was discharged in the rank of PFC. 

A review of the newspaper articles submitted by the applicant all indicate that the applicant was recently promoted to the rank of SGT or was serving as a SGT.  None of the articles indicate that the information was provided by the Army and the text of the articles suggest that the information was provided to the local paper by family members.

The third party letter authored by a former member of the applicant’s unit indicates that he served with the applicant from the beginning of basic training until he was wounded.  He also states that the applicant was always selected for leadership positions and he heard the platoon SGT tell the applicant that he was promoted to the rank of SGT and was the squad leader.  He asserts that the applicant did the job and deserves to have the rank that went along with the responsibility.

Special Regulation (SR) 615-25-50 provided the criteria for enlisted promotions during periods of rapid expansion.  It provided, in pertinent part, that in a combat zone, the commander of a unit, for which a general officer is the assigned or authorized commander, is authorized to promote enlisted personnel one grade without regard to any local grade vacancy or major command ceiling in recognition of a specific combat action of extraordinary or heroic nature by such an individual.  Normal promotions will be made based on unit vacancies by the designated unit commander.  

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.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  Although the applicant has submitted several articles indicating that he was a SGT, none of those articles indicate that they were submitted by Army officials.

3.  The available evidence clearly shows that he was promoted to the rank of PFC after he departed the ETO, while he was hospitalized.

4.  While the Board does not doubt that he was placed in the position as he claims, the regulation in effect at the time did not authorize the platoon SGT the authority to promote individuals at any time.  Additionally, the passage of time and the unavailability of records and personnel that could explain the intent of the advancement are simply no longer available.

5.  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

___mdm_  ___kak__  ___tl ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066042	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/23	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  319	131.0900/ADV GRD	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.