RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040010167


      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             |
|     |Ms. Prevolia A. Harper            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne M. Douglas            |     |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, correction of his records to show
that he served and retired in the rank of master sergeant/pay grade E-8.

2.  The applicant states that he was a master sergeant in 1965 and was
reduced in grade to sergeant first class by mistake.  He further states
that he feels he should not have been reduced from Master Sergeant (MSG) to
Sergeant First Class (SFC) and believes it was a clerical mistake because
no adverse action was ever taken against him.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of portions of his Official Military
Personnel File, a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
and a copy of his Reserve Identification Card in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 15 April 1985.  The application submitted in this case is dated
12 October 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 military records were not available to the Board for
review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records
at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed his
records were lost in that fire.  However, the applicant provided sufficient
documents which would allow the Board to conduct a fair and impartial
review of this case.

4.  The applicant’s WD AGO Form 53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of
Separation- Honorable Discharge) confirms that he was inducted into the
Army of the United States on 6 July 1943 and entered active duty on 27 July
1943.  He served in the Pacific Theater of Operations from 28 May 1944
through
20 February 1946.  He was honorably separated from active service on 9
March 1946 in the grade of Technician Four (Tec 4).

5.  On 20 October 1950 the applicant entered the United States Army Reserve
(USAR).  He was recalled from inactive status served on active duty for 9
months and 23 days during this period and was honorably separated on 12
August 1951. The DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of
the United States) he was issued for this period of active duty service
confirms he held the rank of sergeant as the time of his separation.

6.  Special Orders Number 15, 377th Transportation Company, Harbor Craft
and Marine Maintenance Battalion, dated 1 October 1952, show the applicant
was promoted to SFC (E-6) as a member of the USAR.

7.  On 3 September 1955, the reenlisted in the USAR for a period of 3
years.  His DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record-Armed Forces of the United States)
shows he enlisted in the rank of SFC (E-6).  The applicant completed this
term of service and on 3 September 1958, he immediately reenlisted in the
USAR for an additional period of 3 years.  His rank upon reenlistment for
this period is shown as Master Sergeant MSG (E-7).  The exact date of his
promotion to E-7 is not in the available records.

8.  Letter Order Number 3884-7, Headquarters, XI U.S. Army Corps (Reserve),
St. Louis, Missouri, dated 1 July 1959 shows the applicant was ordered to
active duty for training.  These orders show the applicant’s rank as MSG (E-
7).

9.  Special Order Number 13, Headquarters 419th Battalion, dated 11 July
1961, awarded the applicant the Armed Forces Reserve Medal.  His rank is
shown as MSG (E-8).

10.  Letter Order Number T-6-1544, XI U.S. States Army Corps, dated 30 June
1964, shows the applicant was ordered to active duty for training effective
3 July 1964.  These orders show the applicant’s rank as MSG (E-8).
However, this appears to be an error because later documents show the
applicant’s rank as MSG (E-7).  There are no promotion orders in the
available documents which confirm the applicant was promoted to the pay
grade E-8.

11.  Transfer Letter Orders, Headquarters XI U.S. Army Corps, St. Louis,
Missouri, dated 24 February 1966, show the applicant was transferred to the
Retired Reserve.  His rank is shown as MSG (E-7) although Department of the
Army guidance mandated that the applicant’s rank be classified as SFC (E-
7).




12.  The available documents from the applicant’s Official Military
Personnel File is void of any orders that indicate the applicant was
selected for promotion to pay grade E-8 by a properly constituted promotion
selection board, or that he was promoted to a pay grade above E-7 by the
proper promotion authority.

13.  The applicant provided a copy of certificate of retirement which shows
the applicant was retired from the Army in the pay grade E-7 on 14 April
1985.

14.  The applicant provided a copy of a letter from the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, dated 12 April 1985 which shows his pay computation was
calculated based on his retired pay grade of E-7.

15.  The applicant provided two pages of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted
Qualification Record) shows the highest grade the applicant served for that
period was E-7.

16.  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 were E-7 for MSG
and E-6 for SFC.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his retired grade should have been
established as pay grade E-8 based on his rank title of MSG and the
supporting documents he provided were 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 on a given period of service
performed in his current rank and pay grade.

3.  The preponderance of the available evidence shows that the applicant
was promoted to the rank of SFC with a corresponding pay grade of E-7, and
that this is the highest rank and pay grade he held on active duty.
Although it appears that the applicant’s Reserve unit incorrectly referred
his grade as MSG (E-7) and on 2 occasions as MSG (E-8) well after the 1958
guidance, there is no evidence that shows he was promoted the pay grade (E-
8) subsequent to the 1958 Army enlisted rank and grade structure change.
He held the rank of SFC and pay grade E-7 on the date of his release from
active duty for the purpose of retirement, on 15 April 1985, he was
appropriately placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade.
Therefore, there is no error or injustice related to his retired grade of
SFC (E-7) and no basis to changing it at this time.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 April 1985, therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 14 April 1988.  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

__REB __  ___LF  __  __LMD__  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.





                                   ____Ronald E. Blakely____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010167                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050927                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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