Recall that each locally symmetric space is locally homogeneous, and, since the question is local, I will limit myself to the discussion of homogeneous Riemannian manifolds. Namely, given a homogeneouse manifold $M$ and a point $x\in M$, I will construct a neighbourhood $U$ of $x$ and a collection of Killing fields on $M$ whose restriction to $U$ defines a parallelization of $U$.
The condition that a Riemannian manifold $M$ is homogeneous is equivalent to the assumption that this manifold is of the form $G/H$, where $G$ is a Lie group, $H< G$ is a compact Lie subgroup and $G$ is equipped with a left-$G$-invariant Riemannian metric. Since $M$ is homogeneous, this identification can be made so that $x\in M$ corresponds to the projection of the identity element $e\in G$. (The diffeomorphism $G/H\to M$ comes from the orbit map $g\mapsto gx, g\in G$.)
Now, given this description, let ${\mathfrak h}\subset {\mathfrak g}$ denote the Lie algebras of $H$ and $G$ respectively. Take any linear subspace ${\mathfrak p}\subset {\mathfrak g}$ such that we have a direct sum decomposition
$$
{\mathfrak g}= {\mathfrak h}\oplus {\mathfrak p}.
$$
In particular, the dimension $d$ of ${\mathfrak p}$ is the same as the dimension of $M$. Taking a basis $v_1,...,v_d$ in ${\mathfrak p}$, we see that these vectors project to Killing fields $X_1,...,X_d$ on $M$ which are linearly independent at $x$. By continuity, the same linear independence will hold at all points in a sufficiently small neighborhood $U$ of $x$ thereby, providing a "Killing" parallelization of $U$.
According to the comments, this observation appears to answer your actual question. Needless to say, this is not what the Cartan–Ambrose–Hicks theorem says. Looking at the record of a person who made the edit in the Wikipedia page claiming that "this is the Cartan–Ambrose–Hicks theorem," this person is likely to be a physicist and the quote should not be taken seriously. This is also a general remark regarding Wikipedia articles: Anybody can edit these and, while, in general, the quality of math Wikipedia articles is quite good, occasionally what's written is wrong or misleading or unclear. Reading Wikipedia is not a substitute to reading math books.