RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000371


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Randolph J. Fleming           |     |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 record be corrected to show
that he was discharged with the rank of Specialist Four (SP4), pay grade E-
4.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he knows orders were issued
promoting him to pay grade E-4; however, he was discharged before he
received a copy.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on
5 January 1972.  The application submitted in this case is dated 21
December 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.  On 28 September 1970, the applicant was inducted into the United States
Army and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light
Weapons Infantryman).  He was promoted to the rank of Private (PV2), pay
grade E-2, effective 28 January 1971, and then to Private First Class
(PFC), pay grade E-3 on 28 June 1971.  According to the record, this is the
highest pay grade that he achieved.

4.  The applicant had no disciplinary problems and he was a good Soldier.
However, he could not read or write and he was assigned to the weapons
platoon where he required constant supervision, even though he performed
his duties to the best of his abilities.

5.  The applicant was sent to the Army Education Center for the purpose of
enrolling in reading and writing classes.  The courses were too advanced
for him to comprehend.  He was counseled and questioned about his inability
to read.
The applicant reported that he graduated from high school, in Albany,
Indiana, with a modified type of diploma.  When he was drafted, he revealed
that he could not read or write and he tried to get a discharge, but he was
told to wait until he got to his permanent duty station.

6.  The applicant was severely handicapped by his inability to read or
write and he realized that he could not advance in the military.
Therefore, he expressed a desire to return home to work with his father as
he had done prior to being drafted.

7.  On 8 November 1971, the commander notified the applicant that he was
being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
(AR) 635-212, due to unsuitability.  On the same date, due to the above
pending elimination action, a report of suspension of favorable personnel
actions (flag) was initiated against the applicant.

8.  On 5 January 1972, the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of AR 635-212, due to unsuitability, in the rank of PFC, pay
grade E-3. He had completed 1 year, 3 months, and 8 days of active military
service.

9.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel who were found to be
unfit or unsuitable for military service.  The regulation further provided,
in pertinent part, that Soldiers discharged for unfitness would be
furnished an undesirable discharge, unless circumstances warranted a
general or honorable discharge.  Soldiers discharged for unsuitability
would be furnished an honorable or general discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence the applicant was ever promoted to pay grade E-4
or that an order was ever issued for that promotion.

2.  The applicant was separated because of a literacy problem and it was
presumed he would not be able to advance in the military.  As soon as
administrative separation action was begun, the applicant's records were
flagged which effectively ended his opportunity for promotion.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 January 1972; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 4 January 1975.  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

__wdp___  __tmr___  __rjf___  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.



                                        William D. Powers
                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000371                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060105                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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