RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           26 May 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040007934


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Seema E. Salter               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |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 that his records be corrected to show he was
promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC), O-5.

2.  The applicant states that in the mid 1940s he attended and completed
the Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) conducted by the Military
District of Texas.  In 1960 or 1961 he requested any correspondence courses
which he had not completed.  The response was, "You have completed all the
Officer Courses."  Later, he received a letter stating he was eligible for
promotion to LTC but he required a physical.  He completed the physical.
Then he was told that he had not completed the Advanced Course.

3.  The applicant replied that he had been told he had completed all
courses available, but several weeks later he received another letter that
he had not completed the Advanced Course.  He did not want to argue so he
told them to send him the Advanced Course.  He recognized the course as one
he had previously taken –the Army CGSC.  At the year's end, he received
another letter stating that he had not completed the Advanced Course and
therefore had to retire.

4.  The applicant provides a DA Form 1059 (Academic Report).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 24 January 1963.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 22 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.  After having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was commissioned
      on 27 January 1943.  On 6 February 1946, he was transferred to the
Officer
Reserve Corps and transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) on
      6 November 1952.  He was promoted to major on 26 January 1955.

4.  The DA Form 1059 provided by the applicant shows he attended the CGSC
3d Year Division course during the period 15 through 29 July 1956.  It
stated that successful completion of the course and academic rank could not
be determined until the CGSC, Ft Leavenworth, KS graded and returned the
results of examinations taken during the period.

5.  By letter dated 19 December 1961, the applicant was notified that he
had been considered for promotion but was not selected.  He would receive a
second consideration in about one year.  The letter also invited his
attention to the mandatory educational requirements specified in Army
Regulation 135-155, paragraph 11.

6.  By letter dated 25 February 1962, the applicant thanked the VIII U. S.
Army Corps for forwarding him "Military Educational Requirements for
Promotion in the USAR – Effective 1 January 1962."  He then inquired if his
completion of the third year course of the CGSC (Division) in July 1956 met
the requirement.

7.  By 2d endorsement dated 25 February 1962, the U. S. Army CGSC informed
the Commanding General, VIII U. S. Army Corps that the course the applicant
completed in July 1956 was equivalent to the first three years of the
current U. S. Army School Associate CGSC.  He could earn credit for the
CGSC by completing requirements for fourth and fifth year instruction as a
USAR School student or through completion of equivalent subcourses as an
extension course student.  This reply was forwarded to the applicant by 3d
endorsement dated 17 April 1962.

8.  The applicant apparently was informed that he did not meet the
mandatory educational requirements for promotion to LTC.  By letter dated
17 October 1962, he informed the VIII U. S. Army Corps that he was
presently enrolled in and working on the CGSC extension course.

9.  The applicant was apparently initially found not educationally
qualified for promotion consideration by the December 1962 LTC Reserve
promotion board.

10.  By letter dated 21 December 1962, Headquarters, Fourth U. S. Army
returned the applicant's records to the president of the Reserve selection
board.  The letter informed the president that the applicant was confirmed
as being
enrolled in the CGSC extension course.  Department of the Army policy was
that an officer would be considered to have been awarded constructive or
equivalent credit for his branch advanced or career course provided he was
a bona fide student in either the extension course or the USAR School,
CGSC.

11.  By letter dated 3 January 1963, the applicant was notified that he had
been nonselected for promotion for the second time.  He was informed that
he would be discharged within 90 days unless he was eligible for and
requested transfer to the Retired Reserve.

12.  Effective 24 January 1963, the applicant was removed from an active
status and transferred to the U. S. Army Records Center Control Group
(Retired).

13.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Reserve Components Promotion of Commissioned
Officers other than General Officers), dated 20 December 1960, paragraph 11
(Eligibility for promotion), subparagraph e(2) stated that, effective   1
January 1962, LTCs and majors of all branches must have successfully
completed or received constructive or equivalent credit for the Regular or
Associate Officer's Advanced Course of the service school appropriate to
his or her branch of assignment or branch in which serving or higher
course.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While there was some initial problem with determining the applicant's
educational qualification for LTC promotion consideration, those problems
were resolved.  His records were sent to the December 1962 promotion board
for consideration.  Therefore, the evidence of record shows that failing to
meet the mandatory educational requirements was not the reason for his
nonselection for promotion to LTC.

2.  The applicant was not required to retire because he had not completed
either the Advanced Course or CGSC.  He was required to retire because he
had not been selected for promotion to LTC for the second time.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 24 January 1963; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on         23 January 1966.  However, 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

__mhm___  __ses___  __sap___  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.




            __Melvin H. Meyer_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040007934                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050526                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.10                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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