MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 15 April 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002080982

         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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson
Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member
Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		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 separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) be corrected to show his rank as corporal (CPL).

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unjustly reassigned from his gun crew in the 463^rd Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) Battalion, and reduced to the rank of private first class (PFC) after he had accompanied a forward observer officer of another unit on a mission. He claims that after all the time he has spent with his crew in combat, he was given no information or details in regard to his reduction or transfer from his gun crew. He states that because this event took place near the end of the war, those involved wanted to forget it. He states that after spending 13 months as a good soldier, and serving in the 463^rd with honor, courage, and integrity, he was discharged as a PFC. He rhetorically asks that since he received the Army Good Conduct Medal and honorable discharge, why should he have lost his stripes? His full enclosed self-authored statement was available to the Board during its review of this case.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:

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.

The available evidence includes a Separation Qualification Record (WD AGO Form 100) that were prepared on the applicant during his separation processing. This document lists his rank as PFC in Item 3 (Grade). This indicates that he held that rank on the date of his separation, 7 December 1945. It also lists military occupational specialties (MOS) the applicant served in, which includes
24 months as a CPL in MOS 601 (Anti-Aircraft Artillery Automatic Weapons Crewman).

The applicant’s separation document (WD AGO 53-55) is also part of the available evidence. This document confirms that he entered active duty on
23 February 1943 and served until being honorably discharged on 7 December 1945. It also shows that he served in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) from 9 March 1944 through 24 November 1945, and that he participated in the Normandy, Northern France, Rhineland, and Central Europe Campaigns of World War II.

---

The separation document further confirms that during his active duty tenure, the applicant earned the following awards: Good Conduct Medal; World War II Victory Medal; American Theater Campaign Ribbon; European-African-Middle Eastern Theater Campaign Ribbon; and Distinguished Unit Badge.

The WD AGO 53-55 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation,
7 December 1945, also shows that the highest grade he held while serving on active duty was CPL, as indicated in Item 38 (Highest Grade Held). However, Item 3 (Grade) confirms that he held the rank of PFC on the date of his separation, 7 December 1945. The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person Being Separated), in effect verifying that the information contained in this separation document was correct at the time it was issued.

In connection with the processing of this case, a member of the Board staff reviewed the unit historical records of the 463^rd AAA Battalion, 79^th Division, that are maintained at the National Archives. This review failed to provide any specific documents pertaining to his reduction, or to identify him as holding the rank of CPL at the time of his separation.

Technical Manual 12-235, which prescribed the policy and procedure for the preparation and distribution of separation documents during the period in question, and contained item by item entry instructions. These instructions indicated that the highest grade a member held while serving on active duty would be entered in Item 38 (Highest Grade Held). However, it stipulated that the grade held on the date of separation would be entered in Item 3 (Grade).

Army Regulation 15-185 prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board
for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). Paragraph 2-2 (ABCMR Functions) states that the ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record, and that it
is not an investigative body. Paragraph 2-9 (Burden of Proof) states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. It further specifies that the applicant has the burden
of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

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. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the rank listed on his separation document should read CPL, and that his reduction was unjust. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.

---

2. The available evidence does not include a reduction packet containing the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s reduction to PFC. However, it does include a properly constituted WD AGO Form 53-55 that confirms that the applicant held the rank of PFC on the date of his discharge. This document was authenticated by the applicant with his signature on the date of his separation, which indicates that he verified that the information contained in the separation document was correct at the time is was prepared and issued.

3. By regulation, the Board begins its consideration of every application with the presumption that what the Army did was correct, and the burden of proving otherwise rests with the applicant. Notwithstanding his assertion that his reduction was unjust, the applicant has failed to satisfy this regulatory burden of proof. By his own admission, he was reduced to PFC prior to his separation. Lacking any clear and convincing evidence to show that the reduction was in error or unjust, the Board presumes government regularity in the reduction process, and it finds no evidentiary basis on which to support the requested relief.

4. The applicant is advised that the veracity of his claim is not in question. This action is taken solely based on the lack of sufficient evidence to support the requested relief, in the interest of all those who served during World War II and who faced similar circumstances. The Board wishes to congratulate the applicant for his outstanding World War II combat service and regrets that it must deny his requested relief.

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

___rtd___ __ym____ __jhl____ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080982
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/15
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1945/12/07
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 615-365
DISCHARGE REASON	Demobilization
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 1021	100.0000
2. 189	110.0000
3.
4.
5.
6.