RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 October 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008442


      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. Luis Almodova                 |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William Blakely               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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, that his WD AGO Form 53-55, Enlisted
Record and Report of Separation, Honorable Discharge, be corrected to show
he served on Okinawa (the Ryukyu Islands) or Ie Shima.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his being in Okinawa or Ie Shima was
omitted from his discharge.  He states that he was in Australia, New
Guinea, Leyte, Luzon, Okinawa or Ie Shima then he came home to the United
States.

3.  He concludes that he was so glad the war was over he neglected to pay
any attention to his discharge until his grandson was looking at his
discharge and pointed it out to him.  That was the first time he had ever
looked at it.  He would like to have this corrected because he would like
not to have his word doubted by his grandchildren.  He doesn't have to lie
because he knows where he was during the war.

4.  The applicant provided no documentary evidence in support of his
request for correction of his record, beyond his DD Form 149, Application
for Correction of Military Record.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also
allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to
excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of
limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of
justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the
time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected
to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent
relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other
respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of
limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's military records were lost or destroyed in the National
Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained
from his enlisted record and report of separation and from other official
and unofficial sources.
3.  The evidence shows the applicant was inducted into the Army of the
United States on 13 May 1943 and entered service at Monterey, California,
on 20 May 1943.  He was honorably discharged for the convenience of
the Government – at Demobilization, under the provisions of Army Regulation
(AR) 615-365, in the grade of Technician Fifth Grade, on 7 January 1946.

4.  Item 6 (Organization), of the applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55, shows he
was assigned to the 1820th Ordnance Supply and Maintenance Company.

5.  Item 32 (Battles and Campaigns) shows the applicant was given credit
for participating in the New Guinea, Southern Philippines, and the Luzon
campaigns of World War II.

6.  Item 36 (Service Outside Continental U.S. and Return) shows the
applicant departed the United States on 27 October 1943 and arrived in the
Asiatic-Pacific Theater of Operations (APTO) on 14 November 1943.  He
departed the APTO on 10 December 1945 and arrived in the United States on
26 December 1945.

7.  Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet 672-1, Unit Citation and Campaign
Participation Credit Register, shows the applicant's unit, the 1820th
Ordnance Supply and Maintenance Company, was awarded credit for
participation in the Leyte, Luzon and New Guinea campaigns of World War
II.

8.  Ie Shima is an island which is located geographically in the Okinawa
Perfecture, Japan.  None of the campaigns which were conducted in the APTO
were named for this island.  Participation in any action, whether defensive
or offensive in nature, would have been recognized through award of credit
for participation in the Ryukyu campaign to the applicant's unit.

9.  War Department Technical Manual 12-236, in effect at the time of the
applicant's separation, provided guidance and instructions for the
preparation of the forms to be given to Soldiers on their separation from
active duty.  Chapter 3, of this technical manual, provided guidance on
the appropriate form to be prepared for enlisted personnel at the time
they were discharged, released from active duty, or retired.  The
instructions for the completion of Item 32 (Battles and Campaigns)
provided for entry of the names of battles and campaigns as authorized by
War Department General Orders.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  DA Pamphlet 672-1 shows the applicant's unit, the 1820th Ordnance
Supply and Maintenance Company, was awarded credit for participation in the
Leyte, Luzon and New Guinea campaigns of World War II.

2.  The applicant was given campaign participation credit for a campaign,
the Southern Philippines campaign, although his unit was not given this
same credit. Since the applicant's service records are not available for
the Board's review, it is difficult to determine if this is a result of a
clerical/administrative error.  The Board has a long-standing practice
that it will not take action to correct a mistake that appears on a
separation document no matter the mistaken conditions under which it was
entered if it leaves the applicant worse off than when he came to the
Board.

3.  The applicant was not given credit for participation in the Leyte
campaign of World War II, the same as his unit of assignment.  Since the
applicant's service records are not available for the Board's review, it
is again difficult to determine if he was with his unit at the time of the
campaign and hence entitled to be awarded credit for this campaign.  In
this case, since the applicant's service records are not available for
review, it must be assumed that this campaign was intentionally omitted
when his separation document was prepared.

4.  The applicant and his unit may have been on Okinawa temporarily while
traveling from one location to another in the Asiatic-Pacific Theater of
Operations.  Information about each location at which the applicant served
while on active duty would have been specifically documented in his
service personnel record.  Since the service record is not available, this
information is also not available and cannot be easily reconstructed.  The
applicant's unit, it is noted, was not awarded credit for the Ryukyu
campaign of World War II and DA Pamphlet 672-1 contains no reference to a
campaign specifically designated the Ie Shima.

5.  Ie Shima is an island which is located geographically in the Okinawa
Perfecture, Japan.  None of the campaigns which were conducted in the APTO
was named for this island.  Had the applicant's unit participated in any
action on this island, whether defensive or offensive in nature, it would
have been recognized through award of credit for participation in the
Ryukyu campaign and not for the unit's presence on Ie Shima.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must
show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise 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

___HOF_  ___WB __  _MJF___  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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                            _____Hubert O. Fry_________________
                                      CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070008442                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/10/23                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |100.0000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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