RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 SEPTEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017150


      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:

|     |Ms. Marla Troup                   |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester Damian                |     |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 records be corrected to show he was
promoted to pay grade E-5.

2.  The applicant states he was promoted but not notified of his selection.
 He states he was recommended for promotion and should have been promoted.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of what he identifies as a promotion list
for pay grade E-5 showing he had been selected for promotion.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 8 May 1972.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
16 November 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 on 28 August 1969.  In January 1970 the applicant was promoted to pay
grade E-4.

4.  In August 1971, while assigned to an artillery detachment in Germany,
the applicant was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-5.  Documents
provided by the applicant indicate that as of December 1971 his name
remained on a standing list of individuals recommended for promotion.  The
cover memorandum associated with that promotion recommendation list noted
that individuals would be promoted in the order of merit subjected to
announced promotion point cut off scores and that individuals would retain
their recommended list status when transferring from one command to
another.

5.  There is no indication the applicant was ever actually promoted to pay
grade E-5.

6.  In January 1972 the applicant was transferred to Valley Forge General
Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, where he underwent a Physical
Evaluation Board which found him unfit for continued active duty as a
result of a slight schizophrenic reaction.  He was honorably discharged, in
pay grade E-4, on 8 May 1972 as a result of his disability.  His separation
document indicates he was discharged in pay grade E-4.

7.  Army Regulation 600-200, which established the policies and provisions
for enlisted promotions, then in effect, stated that Soldiers who met
certain requirements could be recommended for promotion to pay grade E-5.
Once recommended for promotion the individual was required to appear before
a promotion selection board after which the individual's name would be
incorporated onto an order of merit recommended list for promotion to pay
grade E-5.  Promotions were then made from individuals on the order of
merit list based on monthly promotion quota issued from Department of the
Army which were controlled via promotion point cut-off scores.  Individuals
who were not qualified for reenlistment under the provisions of Army
Regulation 601-280 were considered to be in a non-promotable status and
could not be promoted even if their cut-off score came up for promotion.

8.  Army Regulation 601-280 required that individuals be medically
qualified for retention to be considered eligible for reenlistment.  Hence,
an individual whose sequence number was reached for promotion after the
commencement of disability processing could not be promoted until
finalization of the disability processing and a determination that they
were fit for continued active duty.  A finding that an individual was unfit
for continued active duty, resulting in disability separation or
retirement, or placement on a Temporary Disability Retired List,
effectively terminated an individual’s promotion list status.

9.  Army Regulation 600-200 also states that individuals who are returned
to active duty from the Temporary Disability Retired List may be promoted
if they held promotion list status prior to placement on the disability
retired list and their promotion cut-off score had been reached for
promotion purposes by Department of the Army.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence does show that the applicant was on an order of merit list
for promotion to pay grade E-5.  There is, however, no evidence, and the
applicant has not provided any, which confirms he was promoted to pay grade
E-5 prior to commencing disability processing.

2.  In the absence of more compelling evidence that the applicant was in
fact promoted, his name on an order of merit list is not sufficient to
change his separation document to show that he was separated in pay grade E-
5.

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 8 May 1972; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
7 May 1975.  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

___MT __  ___CD __  ___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.


                                  ______ Marla Troup________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017150                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060926                                |
|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.       |131.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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