RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           2 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001197


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond J. Wagner             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy       |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne V. Berry              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to
correct his rank on his discharge papers.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was first gunner on a heavy
machine gun and the regulations stated those positions should be manned by
a sergeant. He was wounded in combat and received the Purple Heart.  He is
not asking for remuneration, but he wishes to have his proper rank on his
tombstone.

3.  The applicant provides a Morning Report dated 11 May 1945, a Morning
Report dated 17 May 1945, and his embarkation orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR1999019744 on 21 July 1999.

2.  The applicant’s military records are 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 or destroyed 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 documents provided by the applicant are new evidence which will be
considered by the Board.

4.  The applicant was inducted into the Army on 26 September 1944.

5.  The Morning Report dated 11 May 1945 shows the applicant's status was
changed from duty to the clearing station, 302d Medical Battalion.  It also
shows his grade as private.

6.  The Morning Report dated 17 May 1945 shows the applicant's grade as
private.

7.  The applicant's embarkation orders show he embarked on 29 May 1945 for
transportation to a stateside hospital.  These orders show his grade as
private.

8.  The applicant's separation document (not currently available)
apparently showed he was separated on 10 October 1945 in the rank of
private first class.

9.  From 1 September 1942 through 31 July 1948, the enlisted grade
structure consisted of seven grades:

    Grade 7 – Private
    Grade 6 – Private First Class
    Grade 5 – Corporal
    Grade 4 – Sergeant
    Grade 3 – Staff Sergeant
    Grade 2 – Technical Sergeant;
    Grade 1 – Master Sergeant/First Sergeant.

10.  Army Regulation 615-5 (Appointment and Reduction of NCOs and PFCs), in
effect at the time, governed the appointment and reduction of
noncommissioned officers and Privates First Class.  In pertinent part, it
stated that the commanding officer of a unit to which an allotment of
grades was authorized by the War Department would determine and suballot a
definite proportion to his subordinate commanders authorized to make
appointments.  It also stated that noncommissioned officers appointed
during an emergency under special authorization of the War Department would
be temporary appointments.  In order to provide an opportunity to observe
the performance of candidates for higher grades, unit commanders were
authorized to exceed their authorized allotments in any grade by the number
of vacancies that existed in a higher grade pending the promotion of the
best-qualified candidate(s).  Depending on the type of unit, the company,
battalion or regimental commander was the appointment authority.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant may have served in a position that called for the grade
of sergeant.  However, unless there was actually a vacancy and the
appointment authority received an allocation that would have allowed it, he
could not have been promoted to sergeant.

2.  There is no evidence among the available documents and the applicant
provides no evidence that shows he ever held a grade above that of private
first class.  In fact, the evidence provided by the applicant shows that,
as of 29 May 1945, he held the grade of private.  It appears that from that
time forward he was in a patient status.  Regrettably, there is no basis
for correcting his records to show he held the grade of sergeant or for
promoting him to sergeant.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rjw___  __teo___  __lvb___  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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR1999019744 dated 21 July 1999.




            _  Raymond J. Wagner__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001197                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]