RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           13 July 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003098537


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      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, in effect, that his rank be corrected to show
sergeant (SGT).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that because of the loss of officers
and noncommissioned officers (NCO) in his unit, he was assigned and
performed the duties of a squad leader during World War II.

3.  The applicant provides a statement from his son and copies of his
separation documents in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 14 November 1945.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 1 October 2003.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  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.  This case is
being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consist of
the applicant’s separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) and separation
qualification record (WD AGO Form 100).

4.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 shows that he was inducted into the
Army of the United States and entered active duty on 22 February 1943 and
he continuously served until being honorably discharged on 14 November
1945.  This document confirms that on the date of his discharge, he held
the rank of private first class (PFC) and that this was the highest rank he
attained while serving on active duty.

5.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 also confirms that he held the
military occupational specialty (MOS) 745 (Rifleman) and earned the Combat
Infantryman Badge (CIB).  It also shows that he served in the European
Theater of Operations (ETO)15 October 1943 through 1 June 1945 and that he
participated in the Central Europe, Rome-Arno, Rhineland and Southern
France campaigns of World War II.  This document also shows that during his
tenure on active duty, he earned the American Campaign Medal, European-
African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal and Good Conduct Medal.

6.  A Separation Qualification Record (WD AGO Form 100) on file confirms
that the applicant took over the duties of a squad leader for 30 days after
the loss of his squad leader and was responsible for the welfare, conduct,
and tactical employment of the squad during this period.  It further
confirms that the applicant was captured on 6 September 1944 and held as a
POW for eight months.

7.  A Western Union Telegram, dated 22 October 1944, notified the
applicant’s sister that he had been missing in action in France since 17
September 1944.  This telegram identified the applicant’s rank as PFC.

8.  An Authorization for Issuance of Awards (DA Form 1577), dated 13 March
1991, published by the Department of the Army (DA), Army Reserve Personnel
Center (ARPERSCEN), St. Louis, Missouri, authorized, in addition to the
awards already listed on his separation document, the issue of the
following awards to the applicant:   Bronze Star Medal; World War II
Victory Medal; POW Medal; and 4 bronze service stars with his European-
African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal.

9.  War Department (WD) Letter (Processing, Return and Reassignment of
Recovered Personnel (short title: POW), dated 3 October 1944, as amended in
WD policy letters, dated 19 February 1945 and 17 August 1945, established
operating procedures for the processing and disposition of recovered POW’s
that would be uniform throughout the Army.  It also defined the
responsibilities of all concerned.

10.  Section III of the WD POW policy letter contained the policy and
procedure pertaining to the promotion of returning POWs.  It stated, in
pertinent part, that an interview would be conducted with all recovered
personnel to secure information for consideration by the appropriate
appointing authority in determining their qualifications of an immediate
one grade advancement.
11.  The POW policy letter further stated that returning enlisted personnel
would be promoted one grade provided they met the following eligibility
requirements:  there was a reasonable presumption that they would have been
so promoted at some prior date but for their loss to military control; that
the circumstances surrounding their loss to military control was honorable;
that the individual had not been promoted subsequent to his return to
military control; and that it could reasonably be expected that they would
perform efficiently in the higher grade.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains the Army’s awards policy.  Paragraph

2-9 of the awards regulation contains guidance on award of the POW Medal.
It states, in pertinent part, that it is authorized to be awarded to any
person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Armed Forces, was
taken prisoner and held captive after 5 April 1917.

13.  Paragraph 3-13 of the awards regulation outlines the criteria for the
award of the Bronze Star Medal (BSM).  Paragraph 3-13d (2) states, in
effect, that the BSM is authorized to members of the Armed Forces of the
United States who, after 6 December 1941, were cited in orders or awarded a
certificate for exemplary conduct in ground combat against an armed enemy
between
7 December 1941 and 2 September 1945, inclusive, or whose meritorious
achievement was otherwise confirmed by documents executed prior to 1 July
1947.  This paragraph also stipulates that for this purpose, an award of
the CIB is considered as a citation in orders.

14.  Paragraph 5-12 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the
European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal.  It states, in pertinent
part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each
campaign a member is credited with participating in while serving in the
ETO.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence confirms that the applicant was captured in
France in September 1944 and was held as a POW for eight months.  It
further shows that after the loss of his squad leader, he assumed and
performed those duties for
30 days.
2.  The evidence also confirms that the applicant held the rank of PFC at
the time he was captured, as evidenced by the PFC rank listing in the
October 1944 telegram notifying his sister of his missing in action status.

3.  The applicant’s separation document confirms he held that rank of PFC
at the time of his separation.  There is no evidence showing that he was
ever recommended for or promoted to the rank of SGT based on his
performance as a squad leader.  There is also no available information
pertaining to his eligibility for promotion while he was in a POW status.

4.  The evidence is also void of any indication that the applicant was
interviewed to determine his eligibility for an immediate one grade
advancement upon his return to military control, as provided for by the
Army’s special promotion policy for returning POW’s in effect at the time.


5.  The Army’s special promotion consideration policy for returning POW’s
in effect at the time required that all recovered personnel, upon their
return to military control, be interviewed to determine their eligibility
for an immediate advancement of one grade.  There is no evidence that shows
the applicant was properly interviewed upon his return to military control.
 As a result, it is concluded that the applicant was unjustly denied due
promotion consideration under the provisions of the Army’s special POW
policy.  Therefore, given his satisfactory performance as a squad leader
for at least 30 days prior to being captured, it would serve the interest
of equity and justice to advance the applicant one grade at this time.

6.  The available evidence also confirms that the applicant is entitled to
the following awards that were not included in the list of awards in his
separation document:  earned the following awards that were not included on
his separation document:  Bronze Star Medal; World War II Victory Medal;
POW Medal; and
4 bronze service stars with his European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign
Medal.  Therefore, it would also be appropriate to add these awards to his
record at this time.
BOARD VOTE:

__SAM___  ___SK  _  __MDM__  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was
promoted to corporal and held that rank on the date of his separation; that
he is entitled to the Bronze Star Medal; World War II Victory Medal;
Prisoner of War Medal; and 4 bronze service stars with his European-African-
Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; and providing him a corrected separation
document that includes these changes.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
promotion to sergeant.




            _    Samuel A. Crumpler___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003098537                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/07/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1945/11/14                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-365                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Demobilization                          |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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