IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  6 June 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080001447 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the record of her father, a former service member (FSM), be corrected to reflect award of the Silver Star (SS) and to show he held the rank of Technician Five (TEC 5).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that although her father has filed for correction of his records, she is now speaking on his behalf since he is unable to at this point in his life.  She states that the FSM has lived in a nursing home for a little over two years, after being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease 6 years ago.  She states that she is now requesting that her father receive the well deserved SS and the rank of TEC 5 he was promised.  She states her father is very excited and anxious to receive the SS and the TEC 5 rank as he has again recently asked her for the status.  

3.  The applicant further states, in effect, that upon his discharge, the FSM discovered that he should have received the rank of private first class (PFC) in September 1945, and the rank of TEC 5 in October 1945.  She further states that her father's commander recommended he receive the SS three days before the FSM was wounded the third time.  

4.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of the application:  Power of Attorney, and a self-authored letter, dated 20 October 2007, with the 
9 Attachments identified therein. 


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein is evidence summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Although the Board decisional documents are no longer on file, our files confirm the FSM's case was considered and denied by the Board in 
Docket Number AC85-08600, on 7 May 1985; and that it was reconsidered and administratively denied on 1 October 1987.

2.  The FSM's complete military record is not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973.  It is believed that the FSM's records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a NPRC reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  This case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consist of the prior considerations of this case, the FSM's separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) and the other documents provided by the FSM and applicant.  

3.  The FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he was inducted into the Army on 
28 May 1943, and that he entered active duty on 4 June 1943.  It further shows that he served in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) from 3 November 1943 through 15 May 1945, and that he participated in the Normandy, Northern France, Rhineland, and Central Europe campaigns of World War II.  

4.  The FSM's separation document also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the American Theater Medal, World War II Victory Medal, Purple Heart with 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster (3rd Award), and the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with 4 bronze service stars.  

5.  Item 3 (Grade) of the FSM's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows he held the rank of private (PVT) on the date of his separation, which was 21 January 1946; and Item 38 (Highest Grade Held) contains an entry that confirms that PVT was the highest grade held by the FSM while he was serving on active duty.  The FSM authenticated the separation document with his signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person Being Separated) on the date of his separation.  


6.  In 1987, in conjunction with evaluating a reconsideration request from the FSM, the Board obtained an advisory opinion from the Department of the Army (DA) Chief, Military Awards Branch.  This official indicated that based on the FSM's statement that an officer asked him for his name, rank, and serial number, and told that the information would be given to his company commander with a recommendation that the FSM be awarded the SS, the general orders of the 
1st Infantry Division were searched and no orders awarding the FSM the SS were found.  He further indicated that recognizing the possibility that a recommendation for the SS may have been downgraded to a Bronze Star Medal (BSM), the general orders of the 1st Infantry Division were also searched for orders awarding the FSM the BSM and none were found.  This official concluded by opining that without evidence that a recommendation for the SS was submitted within established time limits or that it was either lost or through inadvertence never acted upon by proper authority, there was no basis to consider the FSM for or award him the SS.  

7.  The applicant now provides a self-authored statement; a question and answer document that captures information from her uncle, the FSM's twin brother, who also served in World War II; and a third-party statement.  All of these statements support the FSM's claims of entitlement to the SS and a higher rank; however, none contain eyewitness accounts regarding either the FSM's rank or award of the SS.  The information they contain are third-hand recollections mostly based on information passed to them from the FSM.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that the FSM should be awarded the SS and that his record should be corrected to show he held a higher rank were carefully considered.  However, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  

2.  A review of all the documents remaining in the FSM's reconstructed NPRC file and of his separation document fail to provide any evidence indicating that he was ever recommended for or awarded the SS by proper authority, or that he was ever promoted to or held a higher rank during his active duty tenure.  The FSM's separation document confirms he held the rank of PVT on the date of his separation and that this was the highest rank he held while serving on active duty.  The list of awards on the separation document does not include the SS, 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 and the list of awards was correct at that time.  

3.  Further, in conjunction with the reconsideration of this case by the ABCMR in 1987, the DA Chief, Military Awards Branch conducted a search of the World War II general orders of the 101st Airborne Division and this review failed to produce either SS or BSM orders pertaining to the FSM.  Notwithstanding the FSM's assertions that an officer indicated he was going to be recommended for the SS, and that he was promised a promotion as the information contained in the third-party supporting statements provided, there is no available evidence corroborating his claims.  

4.  The available evidence remaining in the NPRC file, and the independent evidence provided by the applicant and FSM fail to show that the FSM was either recommended for or awarded the SS by proper authority, or that he was ever recommended for or promoted to a higher grade by proper authority while serving on active duty.  As a result, 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 in this case. 

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 and FSM have failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.  The applicant, FSM, and all others concerned, should know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the FSM in service to our Nation.  The applicant, FSM, and all Americans should be justifiably proud of the FSM's service in arms.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x ____  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 arrived at by Docket Number AC85-08600, dated 13 September 1985.



      ________x_______________
      	CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080001447



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080001447



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1