IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014193


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 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his rank and pay grade as sergeant (SGT)/E-5.

2.  He states his DD Form 214 does not show his pay grade at the time of his separation.
 
3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 and SGT promotion certificate. 

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 September 1985.  He held military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows the highest rank/grade he attained was specialist four (SP4)/E-4 effective 12 December 1986.

4.  He was released from active duty (REFRAD) effective 11 September 1989.  His DD Form 214 shows in item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank):  SPC, and in item 4b (Pay Grade):  E-4.

5.  He provided a copy of a Certificate of Promotion showing he was promoted to SGT effective 1 September 1989.

6.  His record does not contain any documentation showing he was recommended for or promoted to SGT during his active duty service.

7.  Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, governed the promotion of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Chapter 7 provided the criteria for promotion to pay grade E-5.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the names of individuals failing to qualify for reenlistment or extension of current enlistment to meet the precondition service obligation for promotion to pay grade E-5 would be removed by the promotion authority at the time the individual was determined ineligible to reenlist or extend.  

	b.  Chapter 7 further stated the precondition service obligation for promotion to pay grade E-5 was 3 months and waivers would not be granted.  The regulation directed the promotion authority to remove from the local recommended list the name of any individual who was not qualified or who failed to qualify for reenlistment or extension of current enlistment to meet the remaining obligated active service requirement by the last day of the month established for promotion.  Removal under this provision was mandatory.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, states in paragraph 2-1 that the DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  For item 4a and 4b enter active duty grade of rank and pay grade at time of separation.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant provides a certificate showing he was promoted to SGT effective 1 September 1989; however, his records do not contain any orders for the promotion. 

2.  He was REFRAD on 11 September 1989.

3.  He did not meet the precondition of a 3-month service obligation for promotion to pay grade E-5.  The promotion authority was required to remove his name from the local recommended list and the order promoting him to pay grade E-5 would have been revoked.  

4.  In view of the above, his request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20140014193



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1