RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           23 June 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007879


      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. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas A. Pagan               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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, a correction to his rank.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was a private/E-2 (PV2/E-2) at
the time of his separation, and not a private/E-1 (PV1/E-1), as is
indicated on his separation document (DD Form 214).

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 26 March 1981.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
18 September 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 enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 27 March 1978.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 52D (Power Generator
Equipment Repairer).

4.  The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows, in
Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to specialist
four/E-4 (SP4/E-4) on 28 March 1980, and that this was the highest rank he
held while serving on active duty.  Item 18 also shows that he was reduced
to PV1/E-1 on
4 June 1980, for cause.

5.  On 4 June 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), for wrongfully possessing marijuana.  His punishment for this
offense included a reduction to PV1/E-1, forfeiture of $224.00 of pay per
month for two months ($124.00 per month for two months suspended), and
correctional custody for
30 days.

6.  On 29 July 1980, a bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant
based on two incidents of his failing to go to his prescribed place of duty
at the appointed time in January and February 1979; and on his possession
of marijuana in June 1980.  Other factors listed for the bar to
reenlistment action included the applicant’s failure to cooperate with
other members of his section, his substandard performance of duty, his lack
of attention to detail and his frequent absences from formations.

7.  On 12 February 1981, the applicant’s commander reviewed the applicant’s
bar to reenlistment and recommended it not be removed.

8.  On 26 March 1981, the applicant was honorably separated at the
completion of his required service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the
time shows he held the rank of PV1/E-1 and that he had completed a total of
3 years of creditable active military service.  The applicant authenticated
this document with his signature in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being
Separated).

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions)
prescribes the Army’s enlisted promotion policy.  Chapter 2 provides the
policy for decentralized promotions.  Paragraph 2-3 contains guidance on
promotion to PV2/E-2.  It states, in pertinent part, that Soldiers must not
be barred from reenlistment in order to be promoted to PV2/E-2.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was a PV2/E-2 at the time of his
separation was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support this claim.  By regulation, Soldiers who are barred
from reenlistment may not be promoted to PV2/E-2.  In this case, the
evidence of record confirms that subsequent to his reduction to PV1/E-1 on
4 June 1980, the applicant remained barred from reenlistment until his
separation.  The last unit commander review of the applicant’s bar to
reenlistment was conducted on 12 February 1981, and resulted in a
recommendation that the bar to reenlistment not be removed.  As a result,
the applicant remained ineligible for promotion to PV2/E-2 on the date of
his separation.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.


3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 26 March 1981.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 25 March 1984. 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

___RDL _  ___TAP _  ___MJF _  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.




            ____Robert L. Duecaster___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007879                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/06/23                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1981/03/27                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |129.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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