RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        6 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006290


      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. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Donald W. Steenfott           |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Edward Montgomery             |     |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 rank be corrected to read Sergeant/E-5
and his military occupational specialty (MOS) be corrected to read 62B30 on
his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or
Discharge) with an effective date of 15 December 1969.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the above rank and MOS should be
changed on his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214; a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form)
Subject: Recommendation for Promotion, dated 3 July 1969; a Recommendation
for Promotion memorandum, dated 7 July 1969; a DA Form 2166 (Enlisted
Efficiency Report), dated 3 July 1969; and a 13 page Promotion Points
Worksheet, dated 18 July 1969.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 15 December 1969.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 20 April 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.  The applicant was inducted on 11 January 1968 and successfully
completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded
MOS 63B (Wheel Vehicle Repairman).  He arrived in Germany on or about 20
July 1968 and served as a wheel vehicle repairman assigned to the 93rd
Engineer Company.

4.  93rd Engineer Unit Orders Number 87, dated 28 October 1968 show that
the applicant was promoted to the pay grade of Specialist Four (SP4)/E-4
temporary (T) in MOS 63B20, effective 28 October 1968.



5.  A DA Form 2496, dated 3 July 1969 shows that the applicant's commander
prepared a promotion packet that recommended the applicant for promotion to
the grade of Specialist Five (SP5)/E-5 in MOS 63B30.

6.  The applicant submitted a 13 page Promotion Points Worksheet, dated
18 July 1969.  This shows that he appeared before a promotion board.  The
board members unanimously did not recommend the applicant for promotion to
SP5/E-5.

7.  The applicant departed Germany on or about 12 December 1969.  On
15 December 1969, the applicant was honorably released from active duty.

8.  The applicant's DD Form 214 with the period ending 15 December 1969
shows the entry of "SP4 (T) [temporary]" in item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank)
and the entry of "E-4" in item 5b (Pay Grade).

9.  Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant’s DA Form 20
(Enlisted Qualification Record) does not show the applicant was promoted to
the rank of SP5/E-5.

10.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in
effect at the time, governed policy and criteria concerning temporary
promotion to pay grades E-4 through E-6 which required promotion quota
allocations.  It stated that a list of individuals recommended by the board
may be either approved in its entirety or disapproved in its entirety by
the promotion authority.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 provides instructions for the preparation of the
DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that item 5a (Grade, Rate or
Rank) and 5b (Pay Grade) will be completed to show the active duty grade or
rank and pay grade at the time of separation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his rank and MOS should be changed on his
DD Form 214.  Records show that the applicant's commander recommended him
for promotion to SP5/E-5 on 3 July 1969.  The applicant appeared before a
promotion board on 18 July 1969; however, he was not recommended for
promotion to the rank of SP5/E5 in MOS 63B.




2.  In the absence of military records which show the applicant was
promoted to SP5/E5 prior to his separation from active duty, there is an
insufficient basis to change his rank and MOS in this case.  Therefore, his
rank of SP4 (T) and pay grade of E-4 as shown on his DD Form 214 with the
period ending 15 December 1969 is correct.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 December 1969; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
14 December 1972.  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

__BPI___  __ DWS_  __EM____  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.




                                  ____ Mr. Bernard P. Ingold ____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006290                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |6 December 2005                         |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.0700.0000                           |
|2.                      |100.0500.0000                           |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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