RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        1 NOVEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002646


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O’Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol Kornhoff                |     |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 item 16a (Primary Specialty Number and
Title) on his 1978 separation document be corrected to reflect 03Z50 vice
03C40.

2.  The applicant states that a clerical error occurred at the time of his
retirement and that he feels degraded by the demotion on paper.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 1978 application for voluntary
retirement in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 31 August 1978.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
5 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 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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active
duty in August 1958.  In October 1973 he was awarded military specialty
03C40 (physical activities specialist).

4.  On 1 August 1976 he was promoted to pay grade E-7 and awarded specialty
03Z50 (special services senior sergeant).

5.  Change 8, to Army Regulation 611-201, the regulation which governed the
enlisted career management fields and military occupational specialties
(MOS) at the time, noted in June 1977 that under the new EPMS (Enlisted
Personnel Management System) skill levels (the fourth character in the MOS
code) identified skills, proficiency, or ability typically required for
successful performance at the grade with which the skill level was
associated.  Skill level 4 identified positions authorized in grade E-7 and
skill level 5 identified positions authorized in grades E-8 and E-9.  With
the implementation of EPMS MOS 03Z50 was deleted from the Army's inventory
and individuals in pay grade E-7 reverted to their previously held physical
activities specialty (03C) at the skill level associated with their
particular pay grade.  Individuals in MOS 03C40 would migrate to MOS 71L50
(Administrative Specialist) upon promotion to pay grade E-8.

6.  Item 5 (military occupational specialties) on the applicant's
Department of the Army Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) confirmed
the applicant was reverted from specialty 03Z50 to 03C40 and that he held
that specialty at the time of his retirement, as did the information on his
automated personnel qualification record (Department of the Army Form 2).

7.  In March 1978 the applicant's Application for Voluntary Retirement
(Department of the Army Form 2339) was prepared.  That form does indicate
the applicant's MOS was 03Z50.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The MOS reflected on the applicant's 1978 separation document is
correct.  While the applicant did hold specialty 03Z50 at one time, with
the implementation of the EPMS that specialty was deleted from the Army's
inventory and individuals who held that MOS reverted to their previous 03C
MOS with the associated skill level commensurate with their pay grade.  In
the applicant's case because he was serving in pay grade E-7 his MOS
reverted from 03Z50 to 03C40.

2.  The realignment of military specialties was merely an administrative
action and not an indication that an individual had been demoted.  It is
probable, because the MOS realignment action was only a few months old at
the time the applicant's Application for Voluntary Retirement was prepared,
that an incorrect MOS was entered on the form.  The error on that
application form is not evidence of any error or injustice in the MOS
recorded on his separation document and does not serve as a basis to
correct his separation document.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 August 1978; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
30 August 1981.  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

__JA____  __TO ___  __CK ___  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 Anderholm_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002646                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051101                                |
|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.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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