RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070004096 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Dean L. Turnbull Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Richard T. Dunbar Chairperson Mr. Chester A. Damian Member Mr. Edward E. Montgomery Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his records be corrected to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 November 1988 and that he was never reduced to pay grade E-1 on 22 June 1989. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his military personnel file indicates that he was reduced to pay grade E-1 on 22 June 1989. However, that was an erroneous entry in his personnel record. 3. The applicant does not provide any additional documentation. 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 show that he entered active duty on 19 March 1987. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 31M (Multichannel Communications Systems Operator). 3. He was honorably released from active duty on 30 April 1991 after serving a total of 4 years, 1 month, and 12 days of active service. 4. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Human Resources Command (HRC), St. Louis, Missouri. The HRC stated, in effect, that there is contradictory documentation in (the applicant's) record concerning his correct rank. The DA Form 4187 dated 26 October 1988 indicates that the applicant was recommended for advancement to pay grade E-4 and that action was approved. Subsequently, it was verified on an undated DA Form 4187 that he was reduced to pay grade E-1 effective 22 June 1989. Then, another DA Form 4187 dated 26 October 1989, shows approval was recommended to advance the applicant to pay grade E-2. Some documents in the applicant’s records subsequent to 26 October 1989 show his pay grade as E-2 while other documents show his pay grade as E-4. As such, their office could not make a determination as to the applicant’s correct rank. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 1 November 1988 and that he was never reduced to pay grade E-1 effective on 22 June 1989. 2. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his reduction to pay grade E-1 was an erroneous entry in his military records. There is no evidence in the applicant's military records that show his reduction to pay grade E-1 was revoked. Further, the 26 October 1989 DA Form 4187 request to advance the applicant to pay grade E-2 reinforces the validity of his reduction to pay grade E-1. 3. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must satisfactorily show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit sufficient evidence that would satisfy this requirement. Therefore, there is no basis to grant his requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____rtd__ ___cad__ ___eem _ 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _________Richard T. Dunbar_____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070004096 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20070927 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.