IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 May 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090003513 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 records be corrected to show that he retired in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7. 2. The applicant states that he was retired in the rank and pay grade of staff sergeant/E-6; however, the daughter of his former commander found orders in her father's belongings which show that he was selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-7 on 5 December 1969. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his retirement orders and a copy of Change Number 3 to Circular Number 624-3 (Promotions, Demotions, and Reductions), issued by Headquarters, United States Army, Hawaii, on 24 December 1969. 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 was born on 3 October 1933 and enlisted on 27 May 1952. He remained on active duty as a light weapons infantryman through a series of continuous reenlistments. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 29 March 1967. 3. He was transferred to Hawaii on 26 July 1967 and on 5 December 1969, he was recommended for placement on the promotion standing list for promotion to the pay grade of E-7. He had attained 795.7 points, which placed him in the 11th position overall on the standing list and second in his selected primary military occupational specialty (MOS). 4. He departed Hawaii on 1 May 1970 and was transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, for duty as an operations sergeant. His records show that on 8 October 1971, a promotion packet was forwarded to the Department of the Army Centralized Selection Board. 5. On 28 January 1972, the applicant submitted an Application for Voluntary Retirement to be effective 1 July 1972. He was serving in the pay grade of E-6 at the time. 6. On 30 June 1972, he was honorably released from active duty and was transferred to the Retired List in the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 July 1972. He had served 20 years and 5 days of total active service. 7. The copy of Change Number 3 to Circular Number 624-3, issued by Headquarters, United States Army, Hawaii, on 24 December 1969 provided by the applicant, which the applicant asserts is his promotion order to the pay grade of E-7, is not a promotion order, but simply a change to the promotion standing list which indicates that the applicant was integrated on the standing list effective 5 December 1969. 8. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System) serves as the authority for enlisted promotions. It provides that a Department of the Army centralized promotion system has been in effect for promotion of enlisted personnel since 1 January 1969 for E-9, 1 March 1969 for E-8, and 1 June 1970 for E-7. It was during these periods that boards convened at Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), to select and recommend enlisted Soldiers for promotion to E-7, E-8, and E-9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7 on 5 December 1969 has been carefully considered. 2. The document submitted by the applicant is simply a change to a promotion standing list indicating that the applicant had been added to the standing list effective 5 December 1969. 3. During the period in question, local commands maintained their own promotion standing lists for each grade and promotions were made from the standing list when vacancies occurred in a specific MOS. However, 6 months after the applicant attained promotion list standing, the Army changed to a Centralized Promotion System and all selections for promotions of senior noncommissioned officers were made at the HQDA level. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of his ever being selected for promotion to the pay grade of E-7, there appears to be no basis to grant his request. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. 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) AR20090003513 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090003513 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1