RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            5 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040004539


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughessy        |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his rank and pay grade be
changed from staff sergeant/E-6 (SSG/E-6) to sergeant first class/E-7
(SFC/E-7).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was promoted to SFC/E-7 in the
summer of 1951 while he was stationed in Okinawa.  He also states that he
retired on
31 October 1953, in the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-7, at Fort Jackson,
South Carolina.  He claims that for some reason his record was not kept up-
to-date.

3.  The applicant provides a separation document (DD Form 214) in support
of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 31 October 1953.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
24 June 2004.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows he completed a total of 5 years, 4 months
and
1 day of active military service between 29 June 1948 and 31 October 1953.

4.  The applicant’s Service Record (WD AGO Form 24A), covering his period
of service from 28 September 1950 through his retirement date of 31 October
1953, confirms that he was promoted to the rank and pay grade of SFC/E-6 on

1 September 1951 and that this rank and pay grade was made permanent on
15 September 1952.

5.  The applicant’s record contains a copy of a Determination of Grade or
Retirement, Advancement, Separation or Retirement Pay (TAGO Form 01464),
dated 25 September 1953.  This document confirms the applicant held the
rank and pay grade of SFC/E-6 at the time.  It also confirms that this rank
and pay grade was the highest grade he satisfactorily held while serving on
active duty.

6.  The record also includes a copy of a Statement of Service (TAGO Form
0388), dated 25 September 1953.  This document confirms SFC/E-6 was the
highest grade the applicant held while serving on active duty.

7.  Department of the Army (DA) Special Orders Number 197, Paragraph 79,
dated 7 October 1953 authorized the applicant’s release from active duty
(REFRAD) and placement on the Retired List on 31 October 1953.  These
orders stipulated that he would be placed on the Retired List in the rank
and pay grade of SFC/E-6.

8.  On 31 October 1953, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 that lists
his rank as SFC.  He authenticated this document with his signature in
Item 48 (Signature of Person Being Separated).

9.  In 1958, the Army changed the enlisted rank and grade structure.  This
resulted in the rank title of master sergeant (MSG) corresponding with the
pay grade of E-8; the rank title of SFC corresponding to the pay grade E-7;
and the rank title of staff sergeant (SSG) corresponding to the pay grade E-
6.  However, this structure change did not impact either the rank title or
the pay grade of personnel that had been promoted prior to the change,
which is the operative policy in this case.  In other words, unless
subsequently promoted under the new system, members who had been promoted
to MSG and SFC prior to the 1958 change retained those rank titles and the
pay grades that were applicable prior to the change, which was E-7 for MSG
and E-6 for SFC.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-7
while still on active duty was carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  At the time of the 1958 change to the Army’s enlisted rank and grade
structure, the governing policy mandated that members who had been promoted
to MSG and SFC prior to the 1958 change would retain those rank titles and
the pay grades that were applicable prior to the change, unless they were
subsequently promoted under the new system.  There were no provisions for
advancing a member to a higher pay grade based solely on rank title.

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to the
rank of SFC with a corresponding pay grade of E-6 on 1 September 1951.  It
also verifies that this was the highest rank and pay grade he held while
serving on active duty.

4.  The evidence of record also shows that the applicant was REFRAD and
placed on the Retired List prior to the 1958 Army enlisted rank and grade
structure change.  Therefore, he was appropriately placed on the Retired
List in the rank SFC with a corresponding pay grade of E-6, which was the
rank and pay grade he held at the time.  It was also the highest rank and
pay grade he had held and satisfactorily served in while on active duty.
Therefore, there is no evidence of an error or injustice related to his
current retired grade.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 October 1953.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 30 October 1956.  However, he failed to file within the 3-year statute
of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MDM_  __TEO__  ___JRM_  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____Mark D. Manning____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004539                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/04/05                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1953/10/31                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 600-450                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Disability                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  803  |144.9213                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]