IN THE CASE OF.

		BOARD DATE: 25 November 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007154


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, the son of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests correction of the FSM's military records as follows: 

* to show the FSM was awarded two battle stars for his service in Marseilles, France
* documentation to verify he held the rank of technical sergeant for duties served
* all back pay as a T/4 from September 1944 through December 1945

2.  The applicant states his father's records should be corrected to show the battle stars and his rank during his service in World War II (WWII).

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* the FSM's handwritten document indicating some of his WWII service
* FSM's death certificate
* Applicant's birth certificate
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 21-530 (Application for Burial Benefits
* National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) letter, dated 27 December 2012 with copies of the FSM's records


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 FSM's military records were not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the NPRC in 1973.  It is believed his records were lost in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  The FSM's records show he:

	a.  was inducted on 6 March 1943;

	b.  held the rank of sergeant (SGT) at separation; 

	c.  served in the following battles, engagements, expeditions:  Rome-Arno, Northern Apennines, and Po Valley;

	d.  was awarded two Overseas Service Bars, American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with three bronze service stars, Army Good Conduct Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal; and 
 
	e.  was discharged on 12 December 1945.

4.  The FSM's handwritten document shows he was assigned to the 288th Ordnance Company as a tank mechanic, was made a "Buck" SGT and the unit was awarded three bronze service stars.  He was sent to Marseilles, France and attached to 7th Army in a Tank Transportation Company.  He remained a "Buck" SGT.  The unit was redesignated the 228th Tank Transportation Company.

5.  A 27 December 2012 NPRC letter shows the FSM is authorized the Army Good Conduct Medal, American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with three bronze service stars, World War II Victory Medal, Honorable Service Lapel Button WWII, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Machinegun and Pistol Bars. 

6.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) does not list any campaign designation for Marseilles.  It credits the 228th Tank Transportation Company with participation in three campaigns (Rome-Arno, Northern Apennines, and Po Valley).

7.  The Enlisted Grade Structure of the Army from 1 September 1942 prior to      1 August 1948 shows that both SGT and Technician 4th Class (T/4) were both pay grade 4.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no available evidence showing the applicant held the rank of technical sergeant, T/4.  His records show he was a SGT at his discharge.  In any case, both SGT and T/4 were paid at the same rate, pay grade 4.

2.  The governing publication does not list a campaign designation for Marseilles, France and credits the FSM's unit with participation in three campaigns.

3.  In view of the above, the 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)                                         AR20100000710



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007154



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1