APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant requests that his rank on his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) be changed from SP5 (Specialist Five) pay grade E-5 to Sergeant E-5. He states that he was not a specialist. The applicant submits a copy of a 16 September 1970 maintenance worksheet, a copy of a safety award, copies of two informal routing papers, and a copy of orders awarding him a driver and mechanic badge, all of which show his rank as SGT (Sergeant).
PURPOSE: To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant was promoted to Specialist Five effective and with a date of rank of 25 September 1969. Orders of
29 January 1970 changing his MOS (military occupational specialty) show his rank as SP5. Leave orders of
10 April 1970 show his rank as SP5. Orders of 1 June 1970 awarding him a sharpshooter qualification badge with the rifle, show his rank as SP5.
Orders of 6 October 1970 transferring the applicant to the Fort Dix, New Jersey transfer point for separation processing show his rank as SP5. Orders of 21 October 1970 awarding the applicant the Good Conduct Medal show his rank as SP5.
A 4 November 1970 security termination statement and debriefing certificate, which the applicant signed, shows his rank as SP5. Orders of 7 November 1970 releasing the applicant from active duty show his rank as SP5. Orders of 24 October 1973 from the Reserve Center at St. Louis relieving him from the Reserves and discharging him effective 1 November 1973 show his rank as SP5.
There is no evidence contained in the applicantÂ’s records of orders appointing him to the rank of Sergeant (SGT).
Army Regulation 600-200, then in effect, authorizes the lateral appointment from specialist to NCO within the same pay grade, and states that lateral appointments will be announced in orders.
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. Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.
DISCUSSION: The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on
7 November 1970, the date of his release from active duty. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 7 November 1973.
The application is dated 30 January 1995 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.
DETERMINATION: The subject application was not submitted within the time required. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.
BOARD VOTE:
EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004578
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 October 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090004578 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Orders show the applicant was promoted to SGT and there is no evidence which shows he was laterally appointed to SP5 prior to his separation from active duty. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending item 5a of the applicant's DD Form 214 to show his rank as SGT.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002315
Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20140004147, on 6 November 2014. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any orders or other record that shows he was promoted or laterally appointed to the rank of SGT (E-5). Records show the applicant was appointed to the temporary rank/grade of SP5/E-5 on 19 January 1969.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017959
The applicant, in effect, states he was laterally appointed from the rank of SP5 to the rank of SGT on 5 October 1969. As documentary evidence in support of this application, the applicant provides copies of * special orders, dated 5 October 1969 * a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 26 March 1970 * letter orders, dated 22 March 1972 * DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate), dated 23 March 1972 CONSIDERATION OF...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007638
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant requests his record be corrected to show his rank title as sergeant (SGT). There are no orders or other documents in the MPRJ that indicate the applicant held the rank title SGT.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002869
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The MPRJ is void of any orders or other documents listing the applicantÂ’s rank title as SGT and his separation orders issued on 7 April 1970 list his rank as SP5 in the standard name line. However, the evidence of record confirms he held the rank title of SP5 at the time of separation, as evidenced by entries on his DA Form 20 and in all orders and documents on file in the MPRJ, including the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008283
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his rank as sergeant (SGT) instead of specialist five (SP5). Special Orders Number 144, issued by Headquarters, III Corps, Fort Hood, dated 9 June 1971, released him from active duty (REFRAD), effective 17 June 1971, and transferred him to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his remaining service obligation. _______ _ X ______...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002892C070206
The applicant requests that his 1971 separation document be corrected to reflect that he was discharged in the rank of sergeant (SGT) vice specialist 5 (SP5). The applicant notes that several documents, including his request for early separation, award orders, training certificate, and separation orders from the United States Army Reserve in 1974 and 1975 show his rank as SGT. The orders promoting the applicant to SP5 do not show he was serving as an acting sergeant in pay grade E-4 and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014872
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his rank as sergeant (SGT) vice specialist five (SP5). Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, established the policies and provisions for lateral appointments and the appointment of acting noncommissioned officers (NCO). _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000285
These orders indicate this promotion was temporary; however, his DA Form 20 shows this promotion was made permanent on 23 September 1969, under the authority of Army Regulation 600-200, paragraph 7-22a. An individual could not be promoted to SGT or staff sergeant if the promotion would cause a surplus of by-grade authorized NCO personnel in the unit to which the individual was assigned. There are no orders promoting him to the rank of SGT in his records.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002833
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show he was a high school graduate and he was serving in the rank of sergeant (SGT). However, his contention that he was promoted to the rank of SGT is not supported by the evidence of record or the evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.