MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001066164

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakelllly		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 warrant officer.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he was recommended and served as a warrant officer from November 1944 until his discharge in July 1945.  In support of his application, he submits two witness statements.

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

The applicant’s military records show that on 15 May 1941, he was inducted into the Army of the United States.  He served on active duty for 4 years, 1 month and 23 days until 7 July 1945, at which time, he was honorably separated in the rank of sergeant (SGT).

The applicant’s separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55), issued to and signed by him on the date of his separation, confirms that he held the rank of SGT on the date of his separation.  It also verifies that he was serving in military occupational specialty (MOS) 505 (Ammunition Noncommissioned Officer) and that he earned the Expert Infantryman Badge.  

Item 38 (Highest Grade Held) of the WD AGO Form 53-55 verifies that the highest rank held applicant held while he was serving on active duty was SGT.  Item 33 (Decorations and Citations) confirms that he earned the following awards during his tenure on active duty:  American Defense Service Medal; Bronze Star Medal; Distinguished Unit Badge; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with Arrowhead; and Good Conduct Medal.

The two witness statements  provided by the applicant indicate that he was assigned to a position that authorized a warrant officer and recommended for promotion to that grade.  However, they also verify that the applicant was never actually promoted to this rank because warrant officer ratings were temporarily frozen by higher headquarters.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his record should be corrected to show he held the rank of warrant officer.  However, the Boards finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the highest rank to which the applicant was actually promoted and held while serving on active duty was SGT.  Although the third party statements provided by the applicant verify that he served in a position authorized a warrant officer, they also confirm he was never actually promoted to that rank because warrant officer promotions were frozen.  

3.  While the Board wishes to congratulate the applicant on his outstanding World War II service and on his performance in a position authorized a warrant officer, this service in a position authorized a higher rank does not automatically authorize a promotion to that rank.  Therefore, the Board finds there is no error or injustice related to the rank of SGT listed in the applicant’s record and it is regrettably compelled to conclude that the requested relief is not warranted.  

4.  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.

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

__FNE___  __BJE__  __REB___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001066164	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001067164	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	129.0500
	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.