IN THE CASE OF:	 

	BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080002443 


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, reconsideration of her earlier request that she be promoted to the rank of first lieutenant (1LT).

2.  On the applicant's behalf, her son states, in effect, that it has taken him three years of researching the 262nd Station Hospital’s history to discover that as a result of apathy, the applicant was not promoted from second lieutenant (2LT) to 1LT as she should have been.  He indicates that it is his belief that where you were assigned within the 262nd Station Hospital and who you worked for played a major part on whether or not you were promoted.  He further restates the events of the applicant's military career, as depicted to him by the applicant.  He also outlines events as related to him by another individual, who states she was assigned with the applicant during this period.  

3.  The applicant's son states that although the applicant was assigned to the 262nd Station Hospital, she worked at the Aversa German Prisoner of War (POW) Hospital, with four surgeons, one anesthesiologist, and three other nurses.  He also indicates that it was a 300 bed hospital that treated German POWs with a very limited staff and with limited supplies.  In addition, he claims that other Soldiers assigned to the same parent unit as the applicant worked at the 17th Station Hospital with adequate staff, supplies, and miscellaneous amenities. 


4.  The applicant's son also states that it is possible that the applicant's commanding officer, a Regular Army (RA) West Point graduate, who worked his way up the ranks, viewed the promotion of the applicant and others in the unit as meaningless and a waste of time, knowing that, upon their separation, having chosen to leave the military, they all would be returning home to their normal lives.  He indicates his disbelief that out of ten doctors and nurses working at the Aversa German POW Hospital, that only one was promoted.  He finally asks that the applicant be given favorable consideration for this long overdue promotion.

5.  The applicant provides the following documents as new evidence in support of this reconsideration request:  Self-Authored Statement; Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Decisional Document Number AR20060013711; and Women Veterans Historical Collection Oral History Project Document.

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 AR20060013711 on 19 April 2007.

2.  As indicated in the original Board decisional document, the applicant's  records were not available to the Board and were presumed to have been destroyed in a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), and the Board found no evidence in the applicant's reconstructed NPRC file that showed she was ever promoted to the rank of 1LT at anytime during her tour on active duty.  The Board also determined that without the applicant's records, there was no way to ascertain what her efficiency index was at the time of her separation.

3.  The applicant's separation document (WD AGO Form 53-55) shows that she was inducted into the Army of the United States, Army Nurses Corps, and entered active duty on 5 April 1943.  She continuously served on active duty until being honorably separated on 29 January 1946, in the rank of 2LT, after completing a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 25 days of creditable active military service.

4.  The applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 also confirms she served in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) for 2 years and 11 months, from 
2 September 1943 to 21 August 1945, and that she participated in the 
Naples-Foggia and Rome-Arno campaigns of World War II.

5.  Item 33 (Decorations and Citations) of the applicant's separation document shows that during his active duty tenure, she earned the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with 2 bronze service stars, and as a result of the original ABCMR consideration of this case, a correction to her separation document (DD Form 215) was issued on 6 November 2007, which added the World War II Victory Medal to Item 33.

6.  The applicant authenticated the separation document with her signature in Item 56 (Signature of Person Being Separated) on the date of her separation, which was 29 January 1946.

7.  The applicant's NPRC file does contain Headquarters, 1479th SCU, Special Orders Number 235, dated 3 November 1945.  These orders confirm the applicant was released from active duty in the rank of 2LT on 29 January 1946, and that she reverted to an inactive status. 

8.  There are no orders or other documents in the applicant's reconstructed file that show she was ever recommended for promoted to 1LT by proper authority while she was serving on active duty.

9.  The applicant provides a document titled “Women Veterans Historical Collection/Oral History Project” as new evidence.  This document appears to be a transcript of an interview with a former member of the 262nd Station Hospital, who recalls the history of her military service and indicates that she was subsequently promoted to the rank of captain prior to her final separation from the Army.

10.  War Department Circular 10, dated 11 January 1946, provided for the promotion of officers below the grade of colonel, and not members of the Regular Army, coincident with processing for separation from active duty.  A Second Lieutenant being relieved from active duty was eligible for promotion to First Lieutenant provided he or she met the criteria of completion of 18 months on active duty in the grade of Second Lieutenant, with an efficiency index of 40 or above.  Commanders, including commanders of separation centers, were authorized to promote officers under the provisions of this directive as an incident of relief from active duty.  


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The new evidence provided by the applicant and her contentions were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support his claim that apathy was the basis for her not getting promoted to 1LT at the time of her separation.  

2.  The governing regulation in effect allowed for the promotion of a 2LT to 1LT at their release from active duty if they had completed 18 months on active duty in the grade of 2LT and if they had an efficiency index of 40 or above. The NPRC file and all available evidence, which includes separation orders and a separation document, confirm the applicant held the rank of 2LT at the time of her separation from active duty.   Absent any evidence confirming that the applicant was promoted to 1LT prior to her separation, or that she had an efficiency index of 40 or above, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.  

3.  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 or that would support amendment of the original Board decision in this case.  

4.  The applicant, her son, and all others concerned should know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation.  The applicant, her son, and Americans should be justifiably proud of her 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 of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060013711 dated 19 April 2007.




       _    _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)                                         AR20080002443



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1