RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      23 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002475


      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. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |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 that his report of separation (DD Form 214) be
corrected to reflect his rank and pay grade as a staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his DD Form 214 should be
corrected to reflect his rank and pay grade as SSG/E-6.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a welcome letter addressing him as a
SSG.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 12 August 1991.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 28 January 2005 and was received on 15 February 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.  He enlisted in Jackson, Mississippi, on 19 February 1982 for a period
of 4 years, training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic, and assignment to
Fort Carson, Colorado.

4.  He completed his one-station unit training (OSUT) at Ft Leonard Wood,
Missouri, and was transferred to Fort Carson.  He remained on active duty
through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the rank
and pay grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 on 1 June 1986.

5.  On 12 August 1991, while stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, in the pay
grade of E-5, he was retired by reason of permanent physical disability,
with a 30% disability rating. He had served 9 years, 5 months, and 24 days
of total active service and the highest rank he had achieved was the pay
grade of E-5.  The applicant was on the promotion standing list for
promotion to the rank SSG.  However, there is no indication that he ever
made the cut-off score for promotion to that rank prior to his retirement.

6.  The undated letter provided by the applicant with his application is a
welcome letter from a command sergeant major in Germany that is postmarked
11 October 1991 and welcomes the applicant to his new assignment in
Germany.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects
his rank and pay grade as a sergeant E-5 has been noted and found to be
without merit.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the highest rank
he attained was sergeant E-5 and he was properly retired in that rank and
pay grade.

2.  Therefore, absent evidence to show that he was promoted to the pay
grade of E-6 prior to his retirement on 12 August 1991, there appears to be
no basis to make the requested change.

3.  Although the applicant received a welcome letter addressing him in the
rank of SSG, that letter does not constitute authority to promote him to
the pay grade of E-6.  In all likelihood, because the applicant was a
promotable sergeant he was assigned against a SSG requisition in Germany.
However, that is not sufficient to constitute a promotion to SSG.

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 12 August 1991; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
11 August 1994.  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

_LV ____  __SK____  _MM____  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.




              _____Stanley Kelley_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002475                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/11/29                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |189/CORR 214                            |
|1.110.0000              |                                        |
|2.129.0000              |302/PRM                                 |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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