RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        9 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003638


      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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine I. Fields           |     |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 9 December 1983 extension be voided,
his record corrected to show he reenlisted and he be paid the applicable
reenlistment bonus.

2.  The applicant states that the Retention NCO (noncommissioned officer)
did not inform him that he would be eligible for a bonus if he reenlisted
rather than extended.  He, himself, was not an expert in retention matters
but he had the reasonable expectation that the Retention NCO was.

3.  He relates that the retention NCO discovered the error on 11 December
1983 and advised that, once the applicant reached his new duty station in
Germany, he should submit a request to correct the situation.  The
applicant relates that he submitted the request but the brigade commander
disapproved it and stated that the applicant should have known what was due
him.  He explained that he could not get the situation straightened out
before his transfer because his unit was in the field and he had to report
to Germany in January 1984.  He feels he is being punished for what someone
else failed to do.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of his Oath of Extension (DA Form 1695)
and his personal statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 24 September 1992, the date of his separation from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 7 February 2006.

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 enlisted and entered active duty on 13 September 1977.
He reenlisted in pay grade E-5 on 20 May 1981 for a period of 3 years.

4.  On 9 December 1983, he extended his enlistment for 31 months in order
to have sufficient service to complete a normal overseas tour in Germany.
This brought his total remaining obligation to 5 years and 8 months.

5.  On 24 September 1992 the applicant was separated under the Fiscal Year
1992 Enlisted Voluntary Early Transition Program and transferred to the
United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) as a staff
sergeant.  He had 15 years and 12 days of active duty service.

6.  During the processing of the case, an advisory opinion was obtained
from the Human Resources Command (HRC), Alexandria, Virginia.  It
recommended denial of the applicant’s request because the resultant
obligated service had to total at least 6 years and the applicant’s
extension resulted in only 5 years and 8 months.

7.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for rebuttal or
comment.  He responded, in effect, that his reenlistment NCO would not have
advised him to pursue the matter and he would have not have undertaken the
task, had he not been entitled to the requested relief.  He served his
country for over 15 years and only wants what is rightfully due him.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no available evidence to substantiate the assertion that the
retention NCO provided inappropriate advice or recommended the applicant
undertake corrective action.

2.  If the retention NCO did advise the applicant to seek relief, there is
no reasonable explanation for the applicant’s 22 year delay in doing so.

3.  The applicant’s extension did not result in sufficient obligated
service to qualify him for a bonus.

4.  The foregoing is in consonance with the advisory opinion from the HRC,
Alexandria, Virginia.

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


6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 24 September 1992; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 23 September 1995.  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

__MKP__  __EF  ___  __RR___  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.




                                  __Margaret K. Patterson__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003638                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061109                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.05                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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