| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That he be promoted to E-8/MSG. He states that an unfavorable Enlisted Efficiency Report (EER), dated 27 December 1968, prevented him from being promoted to E-8. He also states that he did not have any unfavorable actions against his record and was given a favorable Letter of Appreciation (LOA) prior to completion of his EER. He also received an excellent conduct and superior efficiency rating as stated on his Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) Form 20 (Installation Clearance Record). In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), a copy of his DA Form 2166 (Enlisted Efficiency Report), a copy of
a LOA, dated 31 August 1969, a copy of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 31 August 1969, and a copy of his WRAMC Form 20.
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 he enlisted on 18 January 1941, and continued to serve through a series of continuous
reenlistments.
The applicant’s records contain a copy of WRAMC Special Orders 224, dated 3 October 1967, which shows that the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-7/SFC on 13 April 1967, and was awarded the primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) of 91H40.
The applicant provided a copy of his EER, dated 30 December 1968, which shows that the purpose of this evaluation was for his military occupational specialty (MOS) of 91H40.
The applicant has provided no evidence, and there is no evidence of record, to show that his EER prevented him from being promoted to E-8. There also is no evidence, and the applicant has provided to evidence, to show that he was recommended for promotion by a commander in the grade of colonel or higher.
The applicant was retired for length of service on 31 August 1969, with 27 years, and 7 months of Active Federal Service and was placed on the Army of the United States Retired List on 1 September 1969, in the pay grade of E-7/SFC.
The applicant has provided no evidence, and there is no evidence of record, to show that he appealed his EER to the Department of the Army.
Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at that time, prescribed policy and procedures pertaining to the career management of Army enlisted personnel. Chapter
7 governed promotions and reductions. It stated, in pertinent part, that commanders of organizations may authorize a commander in the grade of colonel or higher to promote individuals in the pay grades of E7 through E-9. For separate detachments, companies, or battalions, the promotion authority will be retained at the next senior headquarters within the chain of command which is authorized a commander in the grade of colonel or higher.
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 31 August 1969, the date of his retirement. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 31 August 1972.
The application is dated 17 July 2001, 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
_aao____ _mhm____ _kah____ CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062474 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19690901 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 chapter 12 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 310 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059788C070421
By law and regulation, retirement will be in the Regular or Reserve grade the soldier holds on the date of retirement and advancement on the Retired List is only authorized when a member has held and satisfactorily served on active duty in a higher grade. In fact, the applicant’s own evidence, the LTG letter, confirms that the promotion recommendation submitted on him in 1968 was returned without action by the promotion authority. The Board also took special note of the fact that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100015384
On 8 October 2010, the applicant submitted additional information and requests additional relief in the form of: * Promotion to SFC/E-7 with entitlement to back pay and allowances * Removal of the Relief for Cause EER from his official records * A statement of non-rated time filed in his records and on his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) in lieu of the Relief for Cause EER 5. On 9 August 1985, he completed the Army Recruiter Course and he was awarded MOS 00E and, on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029037
He retired by reason of permanent disability on 8 September 1987 and he was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SSG/E-6 on 9 September 1987. Evidence of record shows he was promoted to SFC/E-7 in 1979 and he was reduced in rank to SSG/E-6 as a result of a summary court-martial sentence in 1983. There is insufficient evidence that would warrant overturning that guidance in the applicant's case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059540C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027630
The applicant's military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 May 1974. The evidence of record fails to show any error or injustice related to the applicant's promotion consideration and/or non-selection. Absent evidence of any error or injustice in the selection process, it is presumed it was the objective best judgment of the selection board at the time that the applicant was not among the best qualified within his MOS based on the needs of the Army when he was considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000196C070206
Counsel states that, contrary to the QMP board's determination, the applicant's military record was competitive enough for him to be recommended for promotion to E-6. A DA Form 4856-R shows the applicant was counseled by LTC T___ of his right to appeal the QMP bar to reenlistment and his options on 27 October 1988. Soldiers, whose continued service is not warranted, even if they recently reenlisted, receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707423
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 9 January 1997, the Physical Disability Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command, approved the PEB findings that he was physically fit for active military service. His EERs immediately preceding that period and the one received after that date all rated his duty performance as “outstanding” or “excellent.” The rater on the last EER did comment that the applicant had...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707423C070209
On 9 January 1997, the Physical Disability Branch, U. S. Total Army Personnel Command, approved the PEB findings that he was physically fit for active military service. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. His EERs immediately preceding that period and the one received after that date all rated his duty performance as outstanding or excellent. The rater on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110007884
The applicant requests correction of his military records to show he was considered and selected for promotion to the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 with retroactive retirement in that grade. The applicant contends that his military records should be corrected to show he was considered and selected for promotion to SFC/E-7 and to retroactively retire him in that grade because his diploma for completion of BNCOC was not filed in his OMPF. The available evidence of record...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072622C070403
Because a record APFT taken within 60 days of attendance was required for him to attend the ANCOC, he took the APFT on 3 June 1999, and he failed the 2 mile run portion of the test, which resulted in his failure of the record APFT. The applicant concluded his reinstatement request to PERSCOM by commenting that the Baltimore Recruiting Command, his unit, failed him and the Army by failing to abide by Army regulations, policies, and procedures. The Board also finds no evidence to show that...