IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 January 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120012396 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) and his Certification of Military Service to show his rank/grade as sergeant (SGT)/E-5 vice corporal (CPL)/E-4. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was stationed in Germany when his unit sent him to the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy in Munich. When he returned from the NCO Academy he was informed he would not be receiving SGT pay. He asked his sergeant to speak with the commanding officer. Four days later he received a SGT uniform. 3. The applicant provides: * Letter, National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), dated 17 May 2012 * Standard Form (SF) 180 (Request Pertaining to Military Records), dated 30 April 2012 * DD Form 214 * Self-authored statement * Certificate of Completion, NCO Academy, dated 10 October 1952 * Certification of Military Service 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 are not available for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the NPRC in 1973. It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 July 1950 and held military occupational specialty 3256 (Welder). 4. He provided a certificate of proficiency, issued by the Seventh Army NCO Academy, on 10 October 1952. The certificate was issued to certify he satisfactorily completed a six-week course in tactics, leadership, and administration. 5. His record contains Special Orders Number 145, issued by Headquarters, Fort Devens, MA, on 9 July 1953, that list his rank as CPL. 6. He provided his DD Form 214, of which large portions are difficult or impossible to clearly interpret; however, this form shows: * he entered active duty on 11 July 1950 * he was promoted to the temporary rank/grade of CPL/E-4 on 5 May 1951 * he completed 3 years, 2 months, and 19 days of total net service for pay purposes * he completed 1 year and 28 days of foreign service * he was awarded the Army of Occupation Medal (Germany) * he was honorably discharged from active duty on 10 July 1953 7. He provided a certification of military service, issued on 22 August 1997. This form lists his rank/grade as CPL/E-4. 8. Army Regulation 615-5 (Appointment and Reduction of NCOs and PFCs), in effect at the time, provided that enlisted Soldiers who were eligible for promotion would be recommended in writing, approved by the appropriate authority, and orders issued confirming the promotion. It also stated that unit commanders were authorized to exceed their authorized allotments in any grade by the number of vacancies that existed in a higher grade pending the promotion of the best-qualified candidate(s). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. At the time of the applicant’s service Army regulations stipulated that eligible Soldiers had to be recommended for promotion in writing, that the recommendation had to be approved, and orders had to be issued to confirm the promotion. Unfortunately, his records do not contain a promotion recommendation or promotion orders for SGT. 2. Regrettably, there is no evidence in his available military record and the applicant provided insufficient evidence to show he is entitled to promotion to SGT. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis on which to correct his DD Form 214 and Certification of Military Service to show his rank/grade as SGT/E-5. 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) AR20120012396 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120012396 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1