Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005978C070206
Original file (20050005978C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050005978


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas A. Pagan               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |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 records be corrected to
show he was promoted to Sergeant Major (SGM), E-9.

2.  The applicant stated, with his June 2000 application, that he served in
units in the capacity of SGM for over 5 years.

3.  The applicant provided, with his June 2000 application, a letter of
appreciation dated 31 January 1958 and an Army Commendation Medal citation
dated           8 September 1958.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 31 August 1968.  The original application submitted in
this case was dated 14 June 2000.

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.  After having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular
Army in June 1948.

4.  The applicant was promoted to Master Sergeant (MSG), E-7 on 2 June
1951.

5.  The Army converted the rank and grade of MSG, E-7 to Sergeant First
Class, E-7 on 1 June 1958.

6.  The applicant was promoted to MSG, E-8 on 3 December 1965.

7.  On 28 March 1967, the applicant was recommended for promotion to SGM, E-
9.  On 1 June 1967, he was placed on the XIX U. S. Army Corps Enlisted
Promotion List for promotion to E-9.

8.  On 13 November 1967, the applicant was placed number 14, in the order
in which the individuals were to be promoted, on the Headquarters, 2d
Infantry Division E-9 Standing Promotion List.

9.  On 22 February 1968, the applicant applied for voluntary retirement to
be effective 1 September 1968.

10.  On 31 August 1968, the applicant was released from active duty in the
rank and grade of MSG, E-8 and placed on the retired list effective 1
September 1968 in the rank and grade of MSG, E-8.  The Defense Finance and
Accounting Service verified he is being paid retired pay as a MSG, E-8.

11.  In June 2000, the applicant requested the ABCMR correct his records to
show he was promoted to SGM, E-9 and to be advanced to the highest grade
held on the retired list.  The staff of the ABCMR administratively closed
his case by informing him he was placed on the retired list in the highest
grade he had satisfactorily held.

12.  On an unknown date, the applicant asked his Senator for assistance.
On    25 February 2005, his Senator stated the applicant "never got his
MSgt stripe please check this documentation and respond.  Our office opened
this inquiry in 2000 findings were positive but (the applicant) never got
his stripe."

13.  Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies
pertaining to career management of Army enlisted personnel, to include
enlisted promotions and reductions.  Section III governed temporary
promotion of enlisted personnel to pay grades E-7, E-8, and E-9, made
against temporary promotion quota allocations in conjunction with personnel
requisition items cancelled by Headquarters, Department of the Army.  A
position vacancy to pay grades E-7, E-8, or E-9 could not be filled by a
promotion unless a replacement in grade had been requisitioned and
notification had been received that a replacement in the appropriate grade
would not be furnished.  In addition, individuals who were promoted to pay
grades E-7, E-8, or E-9 would be required to serve a minimum of 2 years'
active duty in the higher grade in order to retire in that grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's Senator may have misunderstood what the applicant was
requesting as, since the applicant was promoted to MSG, E-8 in December
1965 and held that rank for almost 3 years, it is inconceivable he "never
got his MSgt stripe."

2.  While there is evidence of record to show the applicant was recommended
for promotion to SGM, E-9, there is no evidence to show he was actually
promoted to SGM.  The available evidence shows the highest rank he was
promoted to (vice a duty position he may have held) was MSG, E-8.
Therefore, he was properly retired as an E-8 and is currently being
properly paid retired pay as an E-8.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 August 1968; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on         30 August 1971.  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

__tap___  __ena___  __jrs___  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.




                                  __Thomas A Pagan______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005978                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051122                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020253

    Original file (20120020253.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence of record and he did not provide any evidence that shows he was placed on a permanent recommended list for promotion to E-7 or that he was promoted to E-7 prior to his retirement on 31 January 1977. To standardize promotion qualification and to ensure promotion of the best qualified Soldiers, recommendation by a promotion selection board and placement on a permanent recommended promotion list is required for all promotions to SFC, MSG, and SGM. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005745

    Original file (20080005745.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s military service records contain a DD Form 214, with an effective date of 30 November 1965. It states, in pertinent part, that warrant officers and enlisted members of the Army are entitled, when their active service plus their service on the Retired list totals 30 years, to be advanced on the Retired list to the highest grade in which they served on active duty satisfactorily. The applicant contends, in effect, that his records should be corrected to show he served on...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005285

    Original file (20120005285.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    An AGUZ Form 658 (Determination of Grade for Retirement, Advancement, Separation or Retirement Pay), dated 14 May 1974, shows the FSM was promoted to MSGT (E-7) on 24 January 1953 and reduced to SFC (E-6) on 16 December 1957 (per orders). Records show the FSM held the grade of E-6 when he was retired from active duty on 31 May 1964 and he was placed on the Retired List in that grade. Records show the FSM was advanced on the Retired List to the grade of SFC (E-7), effective 16 May 1974,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019714

    Original file (20080019714.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant provides a self-authored letter, dated 2 December 2008; State of New Mexico, Department of Military Affairs, Military Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico (NM), Orders 124-004, dated 3 May 2000; nine DFAS Forms 702 (Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Military Leave and Earnings Statements (LES)) for the months of March, April, May, June, and July 2001 and January, February, March, and May 2002; DA Form 2166-8 (NCO Evaluation Report) for the period August 2001 through March...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010532

    Original file (20080010532.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant's contention that the FSM's retired pay should be based on the pay grade of E-8 because he held the rank title of MSG was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record confirms the FSM was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the rank title of PSG/SFC and the pay grade of E-7.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081504C070215

    Original file (2002081504C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states that he was promoted to SGM/E-9 with an effective date and date of rank (DOR) of 7 April 1997. This authority also stated that promotion orders would be revoked for those soldiers who failed to enroll in or complete SMC. It stated that the OTJAG had rendered a legal opinion that the Department of the Army (DA) Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER), now the G-1, had no authority to authorize conditional promotions of Army Reserve enlisted soldiers to SGM during...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026207

    Original file (20100026207.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 24 December 2002, Headquarters, 78th Division, Edison, NJ, published Orders 02-358-00003 ordering the applicant's honorable discharge from the USAR, effective 30 November 2002, after having achieved maximum authorized years of service as a MSG/E-8 (32 years). The applicant was promoted to CSM on 1 December 1997 but his orders were revoked and he received new orders on 3 March 1998 promoting him to SGM/E-9 contingent upon completion of Sergeant Major's Course with 2 years. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062149C070421

    Original file (2001062149C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant was recommended and selected for the promotion to the pay grade of E-9 by the 1998 United States Army Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Master Sergeant/ Sergeant Major Promotion Board. The evidence or record shows that the applicant was on a promotion standing list to the rank of SGM/E-9 by a properly constituted Department of the Army promotion selection board sometime prior to his disability processing. By law, members retiring for physical disability should be retired in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025364

    Original file (20100025364.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Title 10 of the United States Code, section 12731 provides the legal authority for age and service (non-regular) retirements. Therefore, absent any evidence that his medical condition rendered him unfit for duty or disqualified him from attendance at the SGMC, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support a conclusion his reduction was unjust or that would support changing his retired grade.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017029

    Original file (20070017029.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows the applicant’s last appointed grade was “staff sergeant major” [SSM/E-9 (P)] in accordance with the Department of the Army Message 864767, dated 20 May 1968. Therefore, the applicant's rank at the time of his retirement was that of a Staff Sergeant Major (SSM) and this rank is correctly shown on his records. With respect to the applicant's rank at the time of entry into the period of...