IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  13 October 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150002029 


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 reconsideration of his previous request for correction of his military service records to show he was promoted to Technician 4 (T/4).

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  After reading the Board's decision, he wanted to cry.  He was so depressed that he arranged to see a Psychologist at his Geriatric Clinic in hope that the doctor would prescribe a medication for him.  At his age there are many events that are not easy to remember, particularly people's names and there is no way he can begin to name some of the places or dates.  However, he does remember volunteering to join the U.S. Army shortly after reaching his 18th birthday.  Being an immigrant from Nazi Germany, and without good knowledge of the English language, he welcomed the opportunity the U.S. Government afforded him to fight for his new country and a chance to become a citizen.  

   b.  After his citizenship was granted, he became eligible for overseas service to fight and support the democracy.  He doesn't believe that his training and overseas combat activities were not a reality.  He did not dream that he was on a landing craft crossing the English Channel on 6 June 1944 and landing on Normandy Beach.  He did not dream that he was attached to the infantry racing through Northern France with General Patton's army and interrogating German prisoners, reading German maps upside down, and obtaining information where German troops had placed land mines to derail their advances.

   c.  He did not imagine his superior with military intelligence, whom he thought was either a staff of technical sergeant, telling him that he was due and qualified to receive a promotion to T/4 and it would be requested.  The sergeant also stated that their Table of Organization had sufficient allotments for the promotion. He did not purchase the bronze stars from an Army-Navy Surplus Store, they were sent to him via the U.S. Postal Service to his home, engraved with his name.  

   d.  He did not image that he was involved in the Battle of Metz, near the Mazell River In Alsace-Lorrain; caught up behind enemy lines for several days; and that eventually their troops advanced forwardly and caught up to their 5-man group, having been shelled upon and without hardly any rations to survive.  He did not dream of being assigned to the Nuremberg Criminal Trials.  It would take him hours and hours to tell the entire story of his life in uniform.  But, maybe he is just imagining these things he was actually a part of.

   e.  He is not sure why his request for such a minor correction presents this problem.  He is telling the truth as best as he can remember.  His legacy as to his service to his country means a great deal to him and would certainly be honored and remembered by his entire family.  He is too old to continue to proceed with this issue any further.  Heaven only knows how many days he has left here.  He doesn't have the energy or the know how to contact his U.S. Congressman to request help with this issue.  He could understand the Board's decision much better if his request had been for reimbursement of a substantial sum of money for the hazardous times he was active in combat on the battlefields, but that is not the case here.  He trusts the Board will at least reconsider the status of his promised promotion and thereby correct his DD Form 214 accordingly.  It would mean a great deal to him.

3.  The applicant provided no additional evidence.

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 AR20130012417 on 20 March 2014.

2.  The applicant provided a new argument and this will be considered by the Board.

3.  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 his records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient available documents in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  

4.  The applicant's available military records show he was born in Berlin, Germany.  He was inducted into the Army of United States on 7 April 1943 and entered active duty on 14 April 1943.  He held  military occupational specialty of German Interrogator.  

5.  He served in the European Theater of Operations from 23 August 1944 through 24 February 1946.

6.  He was honorably released from active duty on 11 March 1946 and he was transferred to the Enlisted Reserve Corps.  His WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable Discharge) lists in:

* Item 3 (Rank) – PFC (private first class)
* Item 38 (Highest Grade Held) – PFC

7.  A WD Form 372B (Final Payment – Work Sheet – Memorandum Copy) shows he was separated on 11 March 1946 and his rank at the time of separation was PFC.

8.  His available records do not contain orders or an instrument confirming advancement, appointment, or promotion to T/4.  

9.  Army Regulation 615-5 (Enlisted Men-Appointment and Reduction of Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) and Privates, First Class), in effect at the time, governed the promotion, appointment of enlisted men to PFC and noncommissioned officer (NCO) grades.  The regulation stated:

   a.  The effective date of an appointment (promotion) was the date of the instrument of appointment unless confirmed by oral orders previously issued when an authorized commander/promotion authority made an oral order and the order was confirmed in writing.

   b.  Technicians are NCOs of the third, fourth, and fifth grades and are appointed for specific duties of technical or administrative nature.  The appointment of technicians was governed by the same regulation applicable to NCOs.  The instruments of appointments should indicate the specialty for which appointed.  All appointments during the present war (World War II) would be temporary and instruments of appointments would so indicate, except that when necessary reappointments of Staff Sergeants, Sergeant, and Corporals holding permanent warrants to the corresponding technician grades were made, such appointments as technicians would be permanent and the date of rank of the reappointment would be the date of noncommissioned warrant held at the time of reappointment.   

10.  War Department Technical Manual 12-236 (Preparation of Separation Forms), in effect at the time, provided that the appropriate separation form would be prepared for all enlisted personnel separated from the service by reason of discharge, retirement, or release from active duty or transfer to a Reserve Component.  The manual stated that item 3 would show the grade held by the enlisted member at the time of separation and item 38 of the WD AGO    Form 53-55 would show the highest grade held by the enlisted member during the current period of active duty.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence of record shows the applicant served on active duty from 14 April 1943 through 11 March 1946.  His final pay worksheet confirms his rank at the time of separation was that of PFC.  The policy in effect at the time provided for entering the rank a member held on the date of separation in item 3 and the highest rank a member held in item 38 of the WD AGO Form 53-55. 

2.  He contends that he was promised a promotion to T/4; unfortunately, it appears that he was separated before any recommendation, if any, was carried out resulting in his promotion. 

3.  In making this determination, the applicant and all others concerned should know that this 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.

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 AR20130012417, dated 20 March 2014.



      ____________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)                                         AR20150002029





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150002029



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1