RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           22 July 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004100385


      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. Walter T. Morrison            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Anderson              |     |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 (1), in effect, that his records be corrected to
show he enlisted in the rank of sergeant in September 1941 and (2) a letter
of regret from the Army concerning the unfair, unjust, and un-American
treatment that his deceased former wife, a former service member, received
from certain members of the U. S. Army Medical Corps.

2.  The applicant states that, because his 30 June 1941 Honorable Discharge
contained the word "good" under character, he was denied reenlistment in
the rank of technician/sergeant and he was required to reenlist as a
private, infantry, unassigned [to] the Philippines.  That resulted in his
being captured and confined for over 1000 days by the Japanese.

3.  The applicant also states that a more serious injustice happened to his
wife as a result of military arrogance of power and military medical
malpractice and therefore, he should be entitled to a hearing before the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  His wife, a U. S.
Army Nurse, was repeatedly told there was nothing wrong with her.  That was
a common medical practice when all diagnostic tests failed to find the
cause of a patient's problem.  There were no CT (computerized tomography)
scans in 1952 and he was not surprised that the military medical "quack"
permitted that damaging evidence to go into her medical records.  On 31
March 1953, he wired the Veterans Administration Hospital in Topeka, KS to
have his wife ready for discharge the next day despite the fact her
discharge was against medical advice.

4.  The applicant provides a statement of service dated 29 January 1958; a
letter from the War Claims Commission dated 28 July 1958; a Consultation
Sheet dated 17 June 1952; a Clinical Record Narrative Summary dated 31
March 1953; his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of
the United States) for the period ending 31 March 1953; his former wife's
death certificate; and a letter dated 25 May 1985.

5.  In response to a letter from the ABCMR dated 26 June 2004, the
applicant provided his DD Form 214 for the period ending 7 September 1951;
another copy of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 March 1953; a
medical document, date of admission 22 September 1946; another copy of the
Consultation Sheet dated 17 June 1952; a Clinical Record Cover Sheet dated
14 August 1952; a Clinical Record, Doctor's Progress Notes for the periods
18, 20, and 21 August (year unknown); a Clinical Record Narrative Summary
dated 9 September 1952; another copy of the Clinical Record Narrative
Summary dated 31 March 1953; a Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital
document dated 5 August 1966; and a copy of a newspaper article dated 11
November 1996.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged errors or injustices
which occurred on 31 March 1953 (the date of the applicant's release from
active duty for the purpose of retirement and the date he demanded the
release of his wife from the VA hospital).  The application submitted in
this case is dated 28 October 2003.  He had submitted earlier requests, one
apparently dated around 1955 (not available).  It cannot be determined if
that case was boarded.  He also submitted one in 1986, which apparently was
administratively closed on 31 October 1988.  Another application, dated 18
June 1999, was also administratively closed.  Apparently, all three
concerned the issues regarding his wife.

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 served in the Army in an enlisted status from 27 July
1931 through 26 July 1934; from 21 September 1934 through 20 September
1937; from 1 July 1938 through 30 June 1941; and from 20 September 1941
through    7 September 1945.  He served on continuous active duty from 8
September 1945 until he retired on 31 March 1945.  He apparently served in
the Medical Department for most or all of his career.

4.  The applicant held the rank of sergeant when he separated on 20
September 1937.  Upon his enlistment of 1 July 1938, he was approved for
enlistment as a private because the enlisted strength of the Medical
Department at the Army and Navy General Hospital was in excess of their
allotment.

5.  The applicant held the rank of technician/sergeant when he separated on
       30 June 1941.  His enlistment documents from his enlistment of 20
September 1941 are not available.  He was listed as missing in action in
the Philippines       following the surrender of Corregidor on 7 May 1942
and was released from captivity in January 1945.  He separated on 7
September 1945 in the rank of staff sergeant.  He retired on 1 April 1953
in the rank of master sergeant.

6.  On 22 September 1946, the applicant's then wife (it cannot be
determined if they were married at the time, the medical document of this
date lists her maiden name), a second lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps,
was admitted for severe, recurrent migraines, cause undetermined.
7.  The Clinical Record Consultation Sheet dated 17 June 1952 shows the
applicant's wife was diagnosed with chronic, moderate anxiety reaction.
The Clinical Record Cover Sheet dated 14 August 1952 shows the applicant's
wife was diagnosed with chronic, severe conversion reaction.  The Clinical
Record Narrative Summary dated 9 September 1952 shows the applicant's wife
was diagnosed with chronic, severe conversion reaction.

8.  The Clinical Record Narrative Summary dated 31 March 1953, apparently
from a VA hospital, shows the applicant's wife was diagnosed with chronic,
severe, schizophrenic reaction.

9.  The VA hospital document dated 5 August 1966 shows the applicant's wife
had been admitted on 24 May 1966 in a recurrence of a longstanding paranoid
schizophrenic psychosis.  On 8 July 1966, she underwent a posterior fossa
craniotomy with a preoperative diagnosis of right cerebellar tumor.
Postoperative diagnosis was acoustic neuroma.  She died on 21 July 1966.

10.  The National Institutes of Health internet site medlineplus.gov
describes an acoustic neuroma as a noncancerous (benign) tumor of the
acoustic nerve, which carries sound from the inner ear to the brain.  The
exact cause usually is not known.  Acoustic tumors grow very slowly.  As
they grow, they push against the brain but they do not spread into the
brain.  A doctor may confirm a diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) of the head or CT scan of the head.

11.  Army Regulation 15-185 governs operations of the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-
11 of this regulation states that applicants do not have a right to a
hearing before the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the Director of the
ABCMR or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing before which the applicant,
counsel, and witnesses may appear whenever justice requires.

12.  Army Regulation 15-185 also states that if a request for a
reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and
the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to
the ABCMR if there is evidence that was not in the record at the time of
the ABCMR's prior consideration.  This includes but is not limited to any
facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's separation documents from his separation of 30 June
1941 are not available; therefore, the circumstances surrounding the
description of his character as "good" or otherwise at the time of that
separation cannot be determined.
2.  The applicant's enlistment documents from his enlistment of 20
September 1941 are not available; therefore, the circumstances surrounding
the establishment of his enlistment grade and the place of his enlistment
cannot be determined.

3.  It is noted that, even though the applicant separated as a sergeant at
his separation of 20 September 1937, he was only approved for enlistment as
a private at the time of his 1 July 1938 enlistment due to an excess of
enlisted strength of the Medical Department at the Army and Navy General
Hospital.  As his enlistment of 20 September 1941 was also pre-Pearl
Harbor, it is presumed that similar circumstances surrounded his approved
enlistment rank at the time of his 20 September 1941 enlistment.

4.  The circumstances surrounding the medical treatment of the applicant's
former wife are unfortunate.  However, as he acknowledges, there were no CT
scans or MRIs in 1952 that could have found the brain tumor that eventually
led to her death.  Considering the medical diagnostic tools available at
the time, there does not appear to have been any military medical
malpractice involved in the diagnoses that were made.  The Board extends
its sympathies; however, there is no evidence of Government error or
injustice.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 March 1953; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         30 March 1956 (or later in 1956, depending on when and
if the issues regarding his wife had been considered by the ABCMR in 1955).
 However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wtm___  __bje___  __ena___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            __Walter T. Morrison__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100385                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040722                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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