RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        17 July 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070006104


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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, in effect, reconsideration of his request to be
promoted to staff sergeant (SSG).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that it is clear in his case that a
mistake was made and a wrong decision was made that a grade could not be
jumped from corporal (CPL) to SSG.  He now requests that the error be
corrected in the interest of justice by awarding him the SSG rating, which
he should have received at the time.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and a supporting
letter from a Member of Congress in support of his reconsideration request.


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
AR20060008345, on 11 January 2007.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found that in the
absence of evidence to the contrary and at 60 years removed, it must be
presumed that the applicant was not promoted to SSG because there was no
vacancy in that grade at the time, and it concluded there was insufficient
evidence to support granting the requested relief.

3.  In support of his reconsideration request, the applicant provides a
self-authored statement, a newspaper article extract, and a letter from a
Member of Congress as new argument and evidence.

4.  In his statement, the applicant indicates that the original Record of
Proceedings indicated that it appeared he had been correct in contending
that promotions could be jumped, which substantiated his original copies of
Morning Reports of another regiment of the same division, which showed
grades were jumped from CPL to SSG.  He further states that due to the high
attrition during the Battle of Okinawa, many vacancies were created and
promptly filled in order to maintain the leadership of command.  He further
indicates that in the division commander's obituary, which he provides in
the form of a newspaper article extract, it listed casualties during the
battle as 2,000 dead and 5,600 wounded.


5.  The applicant goes on to state that the Record of Proceedings also
indicates that there was a presumption he was not promoted to SSG because
there was no vacancy in that grade; however, he claims a vacancy did exist
in the grade of SSG when his squad leader became a casualty and was
evacuated.  He states the resulting vacancy was filled by promoting the
next in rank (CPL 1st Gunner), which was him, to squad leader, which called
for a rating of SSG but not for the mistaken decision prohibiting "jumping
in grade."  As a result, he was assigned an intermediate grade of SGT.  He
further states that as a squad leader, he performed the same duties and had
the same responsibilities as the other squad leaders in the platoon of six
squads with four SSGs and one Regular Army (RA) SGT.  These duties included
manning the observation posts for a 24-hour tour, which in his case
resulted in a sniper shooting the telephone out of his hand while he was
calling back fire orders.  He claims he heard the sonic boom of the
sniper's 50 caliber bullet, which exploded the bakelite telephone into
thousands of pieces.  This very close call has resulted in his suffering
from Tinnitus and he has endured the fog and noise for 60+ years, all the
while realizing, but for an inch to the left, it would have been his skull
instead of the telephone.

6.  The applicant concludes his statement by indicating that it is
abundantly clear that a mistake was made when a wrong decision was made
that a grade could not be jumped from CPL to SSG and he was therefore
assigned the rating of SGT instead of SSG.  He now requests that this error
be corrected in the interest of justice and he be awarded the SSG rating,
which he should have had at the time and would have had when he proudly
returned home to his parents and to the girl who has been his wife for 57
years.

7.  As indicated in the original Record of Proceedings, the applicant's
records are not available to the Board, and the case was and is now being
considered using reconstructed records that primarily consist of his
separation document
(WD AGO Form 53-55), as amended in a correction document (DD Form 215)
issued on 30 December 2004.

8.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55, as amended, shows he was inducted
into the Army and entered active duty on 23 March 1943.  It also shows he
served in the Pacific Theater of Operations from 31 July 1944 through 18
August 1945, and that he participated in the Ryukyus and Southern
Philippines campaigns, and received the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB).
Item 33 (Decorations and Citations), as amended, shows he earned the
following awards during his active duty tenure:  Bronze Star Medal; Army
Good Conduct Medal; American Campaign Medal; Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal
with 2 bronze service stars and bronze arrowhead; Presidential Unit
Citation; Philippine Liberation Medal with 2 bronze service stars; and
Philippine Republic Presidential Unit Citation.
9.  On 5 February 1946, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing a total of 2 years, 10 months, and 13 days of active military
service.  Item 3 (Grade) of the applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he held
the rank of SGT on the date of his separation, and the applicant
authenticated the separation document with his signature in Item 56
(Signature of Person Being Separated) on the date of his separation.

10.  Army Regulation 615-5 (Appointments and Reduction of NCOs and PFCs),
in effect at the time, governed the appointment and reduction of
noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and privates first class (PFCs).  It
stated, in pertinent part, that NCOs appointed during an emergency under
special authorization of the War Department would be temporary appointments
in order 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 candidates.  Depending on the type of
appointment, the company, battalion, or regimental commander was the
appointment authority.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that an error was clearly made when he was not
advanced to SSG based on his assumption of squad leader duties in his unit.
 However, there is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested
relief.

2.  The available evidence includes a properly constituted separation
document that confirms the applicant held the rank of SGT on the date of
his separation, and the applicant authenticated this document with his
signature on the date of his separation.  In effect, his signature was his
verification that the information contained on the WD AGO Form 53-55, to
include his rank, was correct at the time the document was prepared and
issued.

3.  Although it appears the regulation allowed for the jump in grade from
CPL to SSG as asserted by the applicant, the authority to determine the
grade to which a member would be temporarily appointed rested with the
appropriate commander.  There is no documentary evidence confirming the
applicant's assertion that the only reason he was not appointed to the rank
of SSG was because his unit believed he could not jump in grade from CPL to
SSG.  Further, the grade to which a member would be jumped was not
automatic and required the approval of the promotion authority.

4.  While the veracity of the applicant's contention that he should have
been appointed to SSG is not in question, absent any evidence that shows
this appointment was made by the proper promotion authority at the time, it
would not be appropriate or serve the interest of all those who served
during World War II, and who faced similar circumstances, to grant the
requested relief at this late date.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS  __  __DKH__  __LMD __  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 AR20060008345, dated 11 January 2007.




                                  _____John N. Slone_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070006104                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR20060008345/2007/01/11                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/07/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1946/YYYYMMDD                           |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 315-365                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Demobilzation                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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