RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        2 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040006568


      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. Robert J. McGowan             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. 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 records be corrected to
show that he was advanced on the retired list to pay grade E-7.

2.  The applicant states that his highest grade satisfactorily held in the
Army National Guard (ARNG) was Master Sergeant (E-7); however, when he was
separated from the Tennessee ARNG, he held the rank of Staff Sergeant (E-
6).

3.  The applicant provides:

      a.  Special Orders Number 46, Military Department of Tennessee,
Office of The Adjutant General, dated 10 March 1970, honorably discharging
him and removing him from the State rolls, effective 12 March 1970.

      b.  NGB Form 22 (Honorable Discharge and Record of Service), dated
12 March 1970, honorably discharging him and transferring him to the
Retired Reserve as an E-6, effective 12 March 1970.

      c.  NGB Form 22 for the period 25 September 1959 through 24 September
1962

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 12 March 1970.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 23 August 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 is a former member of the Tennessee ARNG.  At the time of
his discharge on 12 March 1970, he was serving as a Staff Sergeant (E-6);
however, his records show that he served as a Master Sergeant (E-7).  He
was promoted
to E-7 on 1 February 1956 and held that rank until 1 March 1961.  The
record does not indicate the reason for his reduction to Staff Sergeant on
1 March 1961, but it was most probably for administrative reasons not
related to misconduct or inefficiency.

4.  The applicant made application for retired pay on 6 December 1983.  On
6 April 1984, the applicant was placed on the retired list.  In a letter
from the Retired Activities Directorate, US Army Reserve Components
Personnel and Administration Center (RC-PAC), St. Louis, Missouri, dated 6
January 1984, he was advised that he was authorized retired pay in the
grade of E-7 [because of his prior service at that rank].  He was also
informed that because of a grade conversion, the rank associated with pay
grade of E-7 changed from Master Sergeant to Sergeant First Class.

5.  Army Regulation (AR) 135–180 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve –
Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service) implements statutory
authorities governing the granting of “retired pay” to former Reserve
Component (RC) Soldiers.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the Retired
Activities Directorate, ARPERCEN (formerly known as RC-PAC) will screen
each retirement applicant’s record to determine the highest grade
satisfactorily held during the applicant's military service.  In arriving
at the highest grade satisfactorily held, the following criteria will
apply:  if the Soldier was transferred to the Retired Reserve or discharged
prior to 25 February 1975, the retired grade will be that which the Soldier
held at time of transfer to the Retired Reserve or discharge, unless the
Soldier held a higher grade at least 185 days or six calendar months on
active duty or in an active reserve status as a commissioned officer or
enlisted Soldier.  If the higher grade held was that of a warrant officer,
the Soldier must have served on active duty or in an active reserve status
for at least 31 days.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Advancement on the retired list to the highest grade satisfactorily
held may be accomplished when an RC Soldier makes application for retired
pay and is accomplished strictly for financial reasons; it has no
relationship to the rank the Soldier held at the time of transfer to the
Retired Reserve.

2.  The applicant held the rank of Staff Sergeant (E-6) at the time he was
transferred from the ARNG to the Retired Reserve.  All of his separation
documents from the ARNG correctly reflect his rank and grade.  Because he
had previously held the rank of Master Sergeant (E-7, and now Sergeant
First Class),
ARPERCEN Retired Activities Directorate advanced him to the rank of
Sergeant First Class (E-7) for placement on the retired list.  The
applicant was notified of this action by letter dated 6 January 1984.
Because this action only affected retired pay, it did not warrant any
changes to previously issued separation documents.

3.  The records show that the applicant is being paid retired pay as an E-
7.  His separation documents from the Tennessee ARNG correctly reflect his
rank/grade as Staff Sergeant/E-6, the rank he held upon transfer to the
Retired Reserve.  There is no error or injustice in this case.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 March 1970; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
11 March 1973.  The applicant did not 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

__wdp___  __rld___  __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.



                                        William D. Powers
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040006568                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050802                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |131.0900                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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