RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           18 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011534


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Vick                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald Weaver                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |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 military records be
corrected to show he separated in the rank of specialist four/E-4.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he attained the rank of specialist
four/E-4 while on active duty and he subsequently joined the U.S. Army
Reserve (USAR) as a specialist four/E-4.  He contends he left the USAR in
September 1968 and three years later he received his Honorable Discharge
Certificate which indicates he was a private/E-2.

3.  The applicant provides his Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated
29 September 1971.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 29 September 1971.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
24 November 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 limitation 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 was inducted on 17 June 1965, served as a sergeant
missile crewman and was released from active duty on 13 June 1967 in the
temporary rank of specialist four/E-4 and transferred to the USAR.

4.  Item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) on his DD Form 214 shows the entry, "SP4
(T)" [temporary].

5.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR on 29 September
1968 for enlistment in the Army National Guard.  He enlisted in the Army
National Guard on 30 September 1968 for a period of 3 years in the rank of
specialist four/E-4.

6.  On 30 September 1968, the applicant acknowledged that he understood the
satisfactory participation requirements.

7.  Battery A, 2d Battalion (105-T) 116th Artillery Unit Orders Number 5,
dated
14 March 1969, show the applicant was reduced in rank to private/E-2 due to
inefficiency resulting from absence from drill in an absent without leave
status.

8.  In July 1969, the applicant requested that he be discharged effective
31 July 1969 by reason of incompatible occupation.

9.  On 31 July 1969, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Army
National Guard in the rank of private/E-2.

10.  Item 3 (Grade) on his NGB [National Guard Bureau] Form 22 (Report of
Separation and Record of Service) shows the entry, "PVTE2."  Item 29
(Highest Grade Held) on his NGB Form 22 shows the entry, "SP4E4."

11.  On 29 September 1971, the applicant was honorably discharged from the
USAR in the rank of private/E-2.

12.  The applicant's USAR discharge orders and his Honorable Discharge
Certificate from the USAR show his rank as E-2.

13.  National Guard Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, set forth
the basic authority for the personnel management of enlisted personnel of
the Army National Guard.  Chapter 6 covered promotion and reduction of
enlisted personnel in the Army National Guard.  Paragraph 6-44a stated that
commanders might reduce Soldiers for inefficiency.  Inefficiency was
defined not only as technical incompetence, but also as patterns or acts of
conduct demonstrating that the Soldier concerned lacked the abilities and
qualities required and expected of a Soldier of his or her rank and
experience.  Commanders might consider any act(s) of misconduct, to include
conviction by a civil court, record of unexcused absences or unsatisfactory
participation (whether or not such acts also result in disciplinary action)
as evidence of inefficiency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant had been reduced to E-2 for missing drills.  He had
previously acknowledged he understood the satisfactory participation
requirements.
There is insufficient evidence to show his reduction was in error or
unjust.

2.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error now
under consideration on 29 September 1971; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 28
September 1974.  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

JV______  RW_____  RR_____  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.




            ___James Vick_________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011534                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050818                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.0200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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