RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006539


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin S. Jenkins             |     |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, correction of his separation orders
to show that he was separated in the rank and pay grade of sergeant (SGT/E-
5).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his rank should have been updated
from pay grade E-4 to E-5.

3.  The applicant provides no documentation in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 23 June 1989, the date of discharge.  The application submitted
in this case is dated 17 April 2004.

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's military records show he enlisted in the U. S. Army
Reserve (USAR) on 24 June 1983, as carpentry and masonry specialist (51B),
in the pay grade of E-1, for 6 years, with an established expiration of
term of service (ETS) of 23 June 1989.  He was ordered to active duty for
training (ADT) on 19 August 1983, and was released from ADT on 9 December
1983.  He was transferred to a troop program unit (TPU).  He was promoted
to specialist four (SP4/E-4) on 6 May 1985.

4.  The applicant was released from his TPU on 26 June 1986, in the rank of
SP4, and was assigned to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training).

5.  He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 23 June
1989, under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, in the rank of SP4.






6.  Army Regulation 135-178 establishes the policies, standards, and
procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted Soldiers
from the Reserve Components.  Paragraph 1-3 states, in pertinent part, that
orders discharging a Soldier would not be revoked or the effective date
changed after the effective date of discharge unless there was evidence of
manifest error or fraud.  After the effective date of discharge, orders can
be amended by the separation authority only to correct manifest error such
as the wrong character of service or to correct administrative errors such
as rank, social security number, or misspelled name.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was discharged in the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4.
There is no evidence in the available records, and applicant has provided
none, to show that he was recommended for or promoted to SGT/E-5 prior to
his honorable discharge from the USAR.

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

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 23 June 1989; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 22 June 1992.  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

_CD ____  __KSJ___  _SLP___  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.




                                  _____Shirley L. Powell________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006539                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060118                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19890623                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-178                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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