IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 December 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080015831 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, in effect, that her records be corrected to show that she was advanced to pay grade E-3. 2. The applicant states that she was advanced to pay grade E-2 after her advanced individual training. Therefore, when she was advanced in grade in Saudi Arabia, it erroneously showed that she was advanced to pay grade E-2. 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 she enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 September 1990 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of switching systems operator. 3. On 23 May 1991, the applicant's commander submitted a Personnel Action (DA Form 4187) which shows that he advanced the applicant to pay grade E-2 effective 1 June 1991 with a date of rank of "1 June 1990." 4. On 1 July 1991, the applicant's commander submitted another Personnel Action which shows that he advanced the applicant to pay grade E-2 with an effective date and date of rank of 1 March 1991. 5. The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 30 September 1991 due to hardship. She had served 1 year and 4 days of active duty. 6. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), in effect at the time, paragraph 2-3, Rules for advancing enlisted Soldiers to private/PV2, states that 6 months (waivable to 4 months) time in service (TIS) is required for advancement to PV2. Paragraph 2-5, rules for advancing enlisted Soldiers (private first class/PFC and specialist/SPC), states that the effective date of advancement will not be earlier than the date the Soldier is eligible. For advancement to PFC, there is a 12-month TIS (6 months TIS may be waived) and a 4-month time in grade (TIMIG) (2 months TIMIG may be waived) requirement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that her records be corrected to show that she was advanced to pay grade E-3. 2. While there are two Personnel Actions advancing the applicant to pay grade E-2, the first Personnel Action advanced the applicant to pay grade E-2 effective 1 June 1991 with a date of rank of "1 June 1990." The applicant was not even in the Army on 1 June 1990, and without a waiver (and there is no waiver indicated), the earliest the applicant could have been advanced was 27 March 1991. 3. As such, it is presumed that a second Personnel Action was executed which showed an appropriate effective date and date of rank. Since the date of rank and effective date are in the month the applicant first became eligible for advancement to pay grade E-2 (March 1991), this Personnel Action appears to have been properly prepared. 4. Since the applicant first became eligible for advancement to pay grade E-3 4 days before she was separated, it must be presumed that she was not advanced beyond pay grade E-2. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is 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: 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. __________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) AR20080015831 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080015831 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1