BOARD DATE:	  26 August 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100009247


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 correction of his WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation - Honorable Discharge) to show:

* his date of birth as 26 January 1922 vice 24 January 1921
* his grade as sergeant (Sgt) vice technician fourth grade (TEC 4)

2.  The applicant states these items are incorrect and he would like them corrected.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* his WD AGO Form 53-55
* a memorandum from Army Service Forces, Ninth Service Command, Oakland Regional Hospital, Oakland, CA, dated 31 January 1945, subject:  Physical Condition of [Applicant], Sgt, [Service Number]
* his birth certificate

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 are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant's records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, given the documents provided by the applicant and a few pay documents remaining in a reconstructed record, the Board will attempt to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  The applicant's enlistment documents are not available.  His record shows he was called to active duty from the Army National Guard on 12 December 1940.

4.  The records show he served in the Army Medical Department (MD) Branch in enlisted military occupational specialty (MOS) 821 (Quartermaster Supply Technician)

5.  Item 10 (Date of Birth) of the applicant's WD AGO Form 53-55 shows his date of birth as 24 January 1921.  Item 3 (Grade) shows his grade as "TEC 4."  Item 38 (Highest Grade Held) shows his highest grade held as "TEC 4."

6.  The U.S. Army enlisted rank insignia used during World War II was established by War Department Circular Number 303 on 5 August 1920.  The system went through two significant changes in 1942.

	a.  On 8 January 1942, War Department Circular Number 5 established the ranks of technician third grade (T/3), technician fourth grade (T/4), and technician fifth grade (T/5).  Initially, these ranks used the same insignia as the staff sergeant (S/Sgt), sergeant (Sgt), and corporal (Cpl) ranks, that is:

* S/Sgt	 - 3 chevrons and 1 rocker
* Sgt	 - 3 chevrons
* Cpl	 - 2 chevrons

	b.  On 4 September 1942, change 1 to Army Regulation 600-35 (Prescribed Service Uniform) added a "T" for "technician" to the standard chevron design that corresponded with each of the three grades, thus:

* T/5		 - 3 chevrons with a "T" and 1 rocker
* T/4		 - 3 chevrons with a "T"
* T/3		 - 2 chevrons with a "T"

6.  A technician was generally not addressed as such, but rather as the equivalent noncommissioned officer rank in its pay grade (e.g., T/4 was addressed as sergeant).  Officially, a technician did not have the authority to give commands or issue orders, but could be placed second in command of a squad by a sergeant under combat conditions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant wants his date of birth and rank corrected.

2.  Regarding his date of birth, the applicant's enlistment record is not available for review with this case.  It is unclear what date of birth he used upon entering the Army National Guard.  However, his reconstructed record contains a copy of a properly-constituted WD AGO Form 53-55 that shows his date of birth as "24 January 1921."  In the absence of his military records or at least his enlistment document, it is presumed the date of birth shown on his WD AGO Form 53-55 is the one he used to enlist.  

3.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  In this regard, the information contained therein should reflect the conditions/circumstances that existed at the time the records were created and under which the military service was performed.  Therefore, lacking convincing independent and verifiable evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the applicant's military service records, including his WD AGO Form 53-55, were correct at the time and there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for changing his date of birth even though he provides a birth certificate.

4.  Nevertheless, a copy of this decisional document along with the application and supporting documents will be filed in his service record in order to provide clarity and address any confusion that might arise regarding his date of birth.  Filing the Board's decisional document will also guarantee the historical accuracy of the applicant's military record regarding the date of birth under which he served.

5.  Regarding his rank, "Sgt" and "T/4" were different ranks for the same pay grade.  Technicians, in theory, were Soldiers in technical fields of work – like medical supply – while sergeants were line noncommissioned officers in combat and combat support fields of work – like infantry or construction engineers.  The applicant's MOS of 821 and his MD Branch would have clearly identified him as a technician, thus his "T/4" or "TEC 4" grade would have been correct.  At the same time, it would not have been uncommon for medical doctors to address him as sergeant, or refer to him in writing as "Sgt."

6.  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

___x____  ___x____  ____x___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by him in service to our Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.




      ___________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)                                         AR20100009247



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)