RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  					
	 

	BOARD DATE:                              		03 NOVEMBER 2005
	DOCKET NUMBER:  				AR20050001259


	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

Mr. Jessie B. Strickland

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Thomas Howard

Chairperson

Mr. John Infante

Member

M

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 he be promoted to the rank of sergeant (SGT) and that his most significant duty assignment (item 28) on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to show “Headquarters, Division Artillery.” 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that 3 months prior to his separation he was reassigned to the Consolidated Truck Company along with all of the other drivers on post.  However, prior to that move, he was assigned to Headquarters, Division Artillery as the Colonel’s driver, aide, and clerk.  As a result of that move, he was not recommended for promotion and was denied the reward he was due for his exemplary duty performance.  Accordingly, he desires to be promoted to the rank of SGT and to have his records corrected to reflect his most significant duty assignment as Headquarters, Division Artillery. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 1 December 1954.  The application submitted in this case is dated 18 January 2005.  

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’s military records are 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 that the applicant’s records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.  

4.  He was inducted in Detroit, Michigan, on 2 December 1952.  He completed his training and continued to serve as a light truck driver.  He was promoted to the rank of corporal (CPL) on 24 April 1954.  He served until he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 1 December 1954.  His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his REFRAD shows in item 28 that his most significant assignment was the Consolidated Truck Company, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct Medal.  He signed his DD Form 214 at the time of his REFRAD.

5.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant was recommended for promotion to the rank of SGT or that he was unjustly denied promotion to the rank of SGT.  Additionally, there is no evidence to show that his most significant assignment was Headquarters, Division Artillery.  

6.  Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the information contained on the DD Form 214 must be verified from the information contained in Official Military Records as of the date of separation.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 provides the objectives of the Army promotion system.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the objectives of the Army promotion system is to fill authorized enlisted spaces with qualified soldiers, to provide for career progression and rank which is in line with potential, to recognize the best qualified soldier that will attract and retain the highest caliber soldier for a career in the Army, to preclude promoting the soldier who is not productive or not best qualified, and to provide an equitable system for all soldiers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The lack of sufficient records as well as the passage of time (over 50 years) makes it difficult at best to determine if the applicant was entitled to be promoted or what his most significant unit was at the time.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he should have been promoted for his exemplary performance has been noted.  However, there is no evidence that he was recommended for promotion or that he was unjustly denied a promotion.

3.  Promotions are not intended as a reward for past performance, but instead is recognition of demonstrated performance and potential for service in positions of greater responsibility.

4.  Therefore, lacking evidence that he was unjustly denied a promotion he was entitled to receive or that his most significant assignment is incorrectly reflected on his records, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct at the time. 

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 1 December 1954; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
30 November 1957.  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

________  ________  ________  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.



		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20050001259
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.110.0000
189/CORR 214
2.131.0000
310/PROMOTION
3.

4.

5.

6.