IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 May 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100027892 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 item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) be corrected to show staff sergeant (SSG) and item 4b (Pay Grade) be corrected to show E-6. 2. The applicant states he served as a motor sergeant in charge of a motor pool as a corporal/E-4 (CPL/E-4); however, there is a regulation that states he should have been promoted to the rank he was assigned in. 3. The applicant provides a Congressional Inquiry packet in support of his application. 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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 September 1981 and he was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Power Generator and Wheel Vehicle Mechanic). His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), shows he was promoted to the rank of specialist four/E-4 on 1 October 1983 and he was laterally appointed to CPL/E-4 on 1 August 1985. The record shows this is the highest rank the applicant attained and held while serving on active duty. 3. Item 35 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows the applicant performed the principal duty of light wheel vehicle and power generator mechanic in MOS 63B while assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky and in Germany; however, he performed the principal duties of vehicle mechanic at his last duty assignment, Fort Lee, Virginia. 4. The applicant’s DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification Record-Part I) indicates the applicant was not in a promotable status and was not on a promotion standing list in Section II (Qualification Data). His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) is void of any orders or documents indicating he was ever recommended for promotion to a grade above CPL/E-4 while serving on active duty. 5. On 15 July 1986, the applicant was honorably released from active duty. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he held the rank of CPL/E-4 in items 4a and 4b. It also shows he was separated by reason of expiration of term of service and Fiscal Year 1986 early release program after completing 4 years and 10 months of active military service. 6. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes the Army’s enlisted promotion policy. Chapter 3 provides guidance on semi-centralized promotion to sergeant/E-5 (SGT/E-5) and SSG/E-6. It states promotion to SGT/E-5 and SSG/E-6 are executed in a semi-centralized manner. Promotion boards, promotion point calculation, and promotion list maintenance is handled in the field. Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) handles promotion point cut-off scores and the monthly by-name promotion selection list, which are determined and announced monthly based on the needs of the Army by grade and MOS. There are no regulatory provisions that provide for promotion based solely on performing duty in a specific higher grade. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show his rank and pay grade as SSG/E-6 based on his performance of duty as a motor sergeant has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. By regulation, promotion to SSG/E-6 is based on selection by a local promotion board and meeting a monthly cut-off score announced by HQDA based on the grade and MOS needs of the Army. In this case, there is no evidence the applicant was ever recommended for promotion by a local promotion board; that he was on a promotion standing list; and/or that he met a monthly promotion cut-off score during his active duty tenure. 3. Further, the applicant's record fails to show he ever performed duties in an authorized SSG/E-6 position as a motor sergeant, and even if so, there are not now nor have there ever been regulatory provisions that allow for promotion to a grade simply based on an individual serving in the position authorized a higher grade. As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 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) AR20100027892 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100027892 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1