| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr. | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his ancestor, a Revolutionary War veteran, should have his records changed to remove the charge of desertion. He states that the Revolutionary War veteran was listed as a deserter on 13 March 1783 but that the family found a discharge paper dated 19 March 1783 and sent it to the Daughters of the American Revolution. He submits several documents to support the request. The applicant shows 22 March 2001 as a date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice and lists ”Revolutionary War” as the reason it would be in the interest of justice for the Board to consider this application.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The available records consist entirely of documents provided by the applicant from the South Carolina Archives.
The only available military document is a Company Muster Roll, 2d Company South Carolina Continental Troops dated 19 March 1783 showing that the Revolutionary War veteran was discharged.
The Revolutionary War veteran executed a 25 March 1782 affidavit conveying his right to an enlistment incentive to a lieutenant.
A civil record extract entitled “Stub Entries of Incidents Issued in Payment Claims Against South Carolina growing out of the Revolution” shows that on 1 October 1784 the Revolutionary War veteran was paid £94 Sterling in pay and bounty for the period beginning on 1 April 1782.
The Revolutionary War veteran executed a 28 March [year unknown] affidavit concerning his claim for a pension under an Act of Congress in 1832. He swore that he had received a discharge at the end of his first 10-month enlistment but had since lost the document. Two other individuals, one a minister, offered affidavits in his behalf.
An undated letter from the Comptroller General of South Carolina to the pension office in Washington supported the Revolutionary War veteran’s application and stated, “There is no doubt of his service.”
An extract identified as coming from the Roster of South Carolina Patriots in the American Revolution lists the Revolutionary War veteran as a participant in several battles and skirmishes.
A 14 February 2000 letter from the author of the Roster of South Carolina Patriots in the American Revolution states that he believes that the term “deserter” was not used in the modern sense. Rather it meant simply that a man had simply found it necessary to go home to plant or harvest or perhaps for the birth of a child. An individual was marked as a deserter so that he would not be paid for the time he was gone. He does not believe that the Revolutionary War veteran was a deserter in the modern sense. He noted that when an individual had changed sides the entry “gone over to the enemy” was used.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552 originally provided that applications for correction of military records must be filed on or before 26 October 1961 or within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice, whichever was later.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered in 1834, the approximate date the pension was denied. The time for the Revolutionary War veteran or someone acting on his behalf to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 26 October 1961.
The application is dated 5 September 2001 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law. Prior to reaching this determination the Board looked at the applicant's entire file. It was only after all aspects of his case had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of his record that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it would have recommended relief in spite of the applicant's failure to submit his application within the three-year time limit.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__FNE __ ___LE___ __TL____ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001061545 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020328 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | Deny |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 142.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065943C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The history of the Purple Heart reveals that during the Revolutionary War it was known as the Badge of Military Merit and it was not awarded for wounds or fatality sustained in action against an enemy of the United States. Notwithstanding the evidence which shows the FSM was wounded at the Battle of King’s Mountain on or about 7 October 1780, there is no authority to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061545C070421
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. 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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002351
The applicant requests correction of his great grandfather's, a deceased former service member (FSM), records to show that he was awarded the Purple Heart. The applicant provides copies of the FSM's declaration for pension paperwork, a letter from the National Personnel Records Center, a two-page extract from a book, and the FSM's Certificate of Death in support of this application. In the absence of evidence that the FSM was wounded or injured as a result of hostile action and treated for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018701
On 10 December 1903, the FSM was dropped from the rolls of invalid pensioners upon the basis that evidence was accepted as legally and conclusively showing that he enlisted on 28 August 1862, in Company K, 1st New York Marine Artillery, deserted, and without having been discharged, enlisted in Company D, 15th New York Engineers. On 11 July 1905, the Military Secretary, War Department stated the FSMs application for removal of the charge of desertion from his record and for an honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069273C070402
The applicant states that the record does not indicate that the FSM was awarded the Purple Heart. The record shows that while he was wounded on 1 July 1898, a period before the Purple Heart was authorized for wounds, he did not receive his Purple Heart until 2 October 1944, the period subsequent to the revival of the award and after it had been authorized for wounds received in action. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005853C070205
The applicant requests that the records of her deceased father, a former service member (FSM), be corrected by awarding him the Purple Heart for wounds received in action against the enemy in World War I. The FSM’s military records are not available to the Board for review. While there is very limited evidence in this case, the evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to show that the FSM was wounded in action against the enemy on 29 September 1918, during WWI.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005691
The applicant requests correction of the record of his deceased great-grandfather, a former service member (FSM), to show he was awarded the Purple Heart (PH). He provides: * the FSM's death certificate and obituary * his Department of Defense/Uniformed Service Identification and Privilege Card * his birth certificate * a family tree * Soldier data and a list of battles involving the 30th Ohio Infantry Regiment from The American Civil War Research Database * pages from websites regarding...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018523
She states the FSM enlisted in the New York 5th Regiment for a 3-year term on 25 December 1776. The applicant provides a document showing the FSM's name appeared on a Description Roll of Deserters of the 5th New York Regiment dated 22 August 1782. _______ _ 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015388
The applicant requests correction of his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation) to show award of the Purple Heart, the American Defense Service Ribbon, and the American Campaign Service Ribbon. With respect to the American Defense Service Ribbon, there is no evidence that the applicant served between 8 September 1939 and 7 December 1941 under orders to active duty for a period of 12 months or longer. Therefore, he is entitled to award of the American Campaign Medal...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050013534C070206
The applicant requests that her great-great grandfather's records, a deceased former service member (FSM), be corrected to show he was honorably discharged. The widow's request was rejected on 28 April 1903 because the FSM was discharged for desertion and was not honorably separated from his last period of service. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence, to show the FSM's discharge was unjust or in error.