Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105774C070208
Original file (2004105774C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        FEBRUARY 2, 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004105774


      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. Constance B. Sims             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas D. Howard              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Maribeth B. Love              |     |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 to be promoted to a permanent rank on the
permanent disability retirement list, retroactive to 15 July 1971.

2.  The applicant states that the Army Regulations (AR) provide for Army
Retirees to be advanced on the Retired list to the highest grade that they
served satisfactorily in while on active duty.  He also states that because
of his education and decorations he is entitled to the permanent enlisted
(E) rank of E-9 or Chief Warrant Officer three (CW3).

3.  The applicant provides a Department of Defense Form (DD Fm) 215, a DD
Fm 214, which indicates that at the time of discharge he was serving in the
pay grade of E-4; a chart on Educational Level of Military Personnel on
Active Duty; a letter from the House of Representatives regarding his
participation in a       re-election campaign, two photographs; and a
letter from the Customer Information Quality Assurance (CIQA) Department
indicating that on 25 July 2000, he submitted an application concerning
retirement at a higher grade and because of the unavailability of his
service records his case was closed administratively.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:  Counsel requests that the Board
look into the matter and provide a written response to the applicant’
concerns.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice, which
occurred on 15 July 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated
2 March 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 enlisted and entered active duty on 4 August 1969, in pay
grade E-1, with 16 years of civilian education and a degree in History.  He
successfully completed basic and advance individual training and was
promoted to pay grade E-2 in December 1969.  On 5 January 1970, he was
advanced to the pay grade of E-5 when he entered Infantry Officer Candidate
School (OCS) at Fort Benning, Georgia.

4.  His records indicate that on 21 April 1970 he was released from OCS for
personal reasons and his grade of E-2 was restored.

5.  In June 1970, he was assigned to Vietnam as an infantryman and promoted
to pay grade E-3 on 20 June 1970.  On 25 June 1970 the applicant sustained
a “twisting type injury to the left knee…while jumping from a helicopter.”
As a result of his injuries he was evacuated from Vietnam and ultimately
retired by reason of disability of 15 July 1971, having never been restored
to active duty.  He was, however, promoted to pay grade E-4 on 20 December
1970 while a member of the Medical Holding Detachment at the United State
Naval Hospital in Saint Albans Long Island, New York.

6.  Army Regulation 350-51, states that upon enrollment in class,
candidates will be promoted to pay grade E-5, in accordance with AR 600-8-
19, if they then hold a lower grade. Candidates with a higher grade will
retain that grade. Students promoted on the basis of OCS attendance who
fail to successfully complete the course will be reduced to the grade held
before entering OCS or to a grade deemed suitable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by
the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and
regulations, it is concluded that the applicant was properly retired in the
pay grade of E-4.

2.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant was restored back to the
previous pay grade of E-2.  The fact that he did not complete OCS, the
basis for his promotion to pay grade E5, indicates that he was properly
reduced back to the pay grade of E2 and that he did not successfully serve
in pay grade E5.

3.  The applicant makes mention that his education and decorations is an
entitlement to advance him to the permanent rank of E-9 or CW3.  Pursuing a
college degree fulfills the professional development requirements of the
designated branch or functional area.  However, there are no regulations
that stipulate that if a soldier attains a college degree he/she will
automatically be promoted to the rank of E-9 or CW3.

4.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt
to be resolved in favor of the applicant.
5.  The evidence of record clearly shows that orders were published on
1 July 1971 placing the applicant on the Retired list in the pay grade of E-
4.  There is no evidence of record to support his contention that he was
promoted to E-5 (other than the OCS promotion) and successfully served in
that pay grade prior to his discharge on 15 July 1971.  Therefore, his DD
Form 214 is correct as currently reflected.

6.  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.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

mbl_____  tdh _____  ji       ____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





                                  ____Thomas D. Howard  __
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105774                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050205                                |
|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]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019484

    Original file (20100019484.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. However, item 42 (Remarks) of his DA Form 20 shows that on 29 April 1970, he was released from OCS for lack of leadership potential under the provisions of Army Regulation 351-5 (United States Army Officer Candidate School). Although he provided correspondence which stated he was performing duties normally performed by a commissioned officer, there is no indication he was commissioned or held the rank of CPT/O-3 at anytime during his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002575

    Original file (20070002575.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge document be corrected to show his rank as chief warrant officer three (CW3)/pay grade W-3. The applicant's military service records contain a copy of a DD Form 214, with an effective date of 29 Jun 1971, which shows that he entered active service on 18 May 1970 and served as a USAR warrant officer in MOS 100B. Therefore, the evidence of record also shows that the applicant’s military service records correctly document his grade at the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002892C070206

    Original file (20050002892C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his 1971 separation document be corrected to reflect that he was discharged in the rank of sergeant (SGT) vice specialist 5 (SP5). The applicant notes that several documents, including his request for early separation, award orders, training certificate, and separation orders from the United States Army Reserve in 1974 and 1975 show his rank as SGT. The orders promoting the applicant to SP5 do not show he was serving as an acting sergeant in pay grade E-4 and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060792C070421

    Original file (2001060792C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. The applicant requests...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015621

    Original file (20140015621.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 31 March 1976 to show he was retired in the rank/grade of Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3)/W-3. It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The DD Form 214 provides a record of a Soldier's active Army service at the time of release from active duty and does not reflect other...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025465

    Original file (20100025465.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He does not know why he was not promoted. His records show he was considered for promotion to CW3 by the 24 September 1965, 12 August 1966, and 21 April 1967 promotion selection boards, but he was not selected. It states commissioned and warrant officers were recommended for promotion by their commanders, and were selected by centralized (service wide) promotion selection boards who made promotion determinations based upon the officers' promotion records.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012600

    Original file (20140012600.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Letter Orders Number D-5-967, issued by Office of the Adjutant General on 27 May 1971, ordered his retirement in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5 and placement on the TDRL with a combined rating of 90 percent, effective 7 June 1971. Medical facility commanders may consider patients for promotion under the normal promotion criteria of this chapter, together with the following guidance: (1) Individuals with recommended-list status for promotion to pay grade E-5 or E-6 resulting from selection by a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150000960

    Original file (20150000960.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Specifically, the applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show in: * block 23a (Specialty Number and Title), his military occupational specialty (MOS) as "Field Illumination Crew Chief" * block 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized), he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal * block 25 (Education and Training Completed), he graduated from the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007866

    Original file (20090007866.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that items 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show sergeant/E5; that item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) be corrected to show the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar; and that item 14 (Military Education) be corrected to show he completed basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014072

    Original file (20110014072.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his record to show he: * enlisted for direct accession as a commissioned officer * was awarded constructive service credit for the master's degree he earned at the University of Colorado * was initially appointed in the rank/grade of first lieutenant (1LT)/O-2 2. He also noted that had the applicant applied for a direct appointment based upon his degree from the University of Colorado, he may have tentatively qualified to board for a direct...