IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140013497 


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 that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) be corrected to show his rank as Technician 4th Class (T4) and all of the awards he is entitled to receive to include the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The applicant states that he was promoted to the rank of T4 but his DD Form 214 reflects the rank of corporal (CPL).  He also states that he did not receive any awards.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 and a photograph.

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 complete military records are not available for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed the applicant's records were partially destroyed in that fire.  However, the documents contained in a reconstructed record are sufficient to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 July 1947 for a period of
3 years.  He completed his training as a photographic lab specialist and was transferred to Japan where he was awarded the Army of Occupation Medal with Japan Clasp.  He was subsequently transferred to Korea, and while it cannot be determined how long he remained in Korea, he served 1 year, 10 months, and
17 days of foreign service.

4.  On 5 July 1950, he was honorably discharged at Fort Benning, Georgia in the rank of corporal (CPL).  He had served 2 years, 11 months, and 27 days of active service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of discharge shows he was awarded the Army of Occupation Medal.

5.  A review of the available records failed to show any promotion orders; however, his medical records contain entries showing he served in the ranks of TEC5 (T5) and TEC4 (T4).  

6.  Pay grade 5 equated to the ranks of CPL and T5; pay grade 4 equated to the ranks of SGT and T4.

7.  Effective 1 August 1948 the enlisted pay grades were converted and the ranks of SGT/T4 were converted to pay grade 4 (CPL).  Effective 1 October 1949, the enlisted pay grades were converted to “E” grades, ie, E-4, E-5, etc.
The ranks of SGT and T4 were converted to CPL E-4.

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his rank was incorrectly entered on his 
DD Form 214 as CPL has been noted and appears to lack merit.  The enlisted ranks went through a conversion which changed the ranks of SGT and T4 to CPL prior to the applicant’s discharge and the applicant was affected by that change.  Accordingly, his DD Form 214 correctly reflects what his proper rank was at the time of discharge.
2.  The applicant’s contention that he should be entitled to additional awards has also been noted and appears to lack merit.  While the applicant has not identified any specific awards other than the Good Conduct Medal, there does not appear to be any awards to which he is entitled.

3.  While there is no entitlement to award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, there are insufficient records available to determine his eligibility for that award.

4.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

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 the applicant in service to the United States.  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)                                         AR20140013497



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140013497



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1