RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        7 December 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060006614


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale DeBruler                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Racster                 |     |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 sergeant first class (SFC), E-7.

2.  The applicant states he was assigned to the 18th Engineer Battalion at
Fort Devens, Massachusetts in May of 1969 as a platoon sergeant.  He states
that he would rummage through the landfill during some of his days off.  On
one occasion, he noticed the waste of government property and reported it
to his superiors, but he was told to drop the matter.  About three weeks
later, he went before the E-7 promotion board.  The day prior he was told
to report to the Post Commander and he was chewed out.  The following day,
he went to appear before the E-7 promotion board, but he was denied.  He
was reassigned to the Special Processing Detachment where he endured
several hardships.  He further states that he was forced out of the Army
after 20 years because of his pay grade.  He states that the Post
Administration Sergeant at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri told him that his
records had been flagged and there was no way he could make E-7.

3.  The applicant provides a personal statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 31 August 1975.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 5 May 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 was inducted into the Army on 22 October 1953 and was
discharged on 18 February 1954 for immediate enlistment in the Regular
Army.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 February 1954.  He was
released from active duty on 21 February 1957 and was transferred to the
U.S. Army Reserve on the following date to complete his Reserve obligation.


5.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 December 1958 and was discharged
on 12 October 1960 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 13 October
1960 and continued to serve on active duty through a series of
reenlistments.

6.  He was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG), E-6 on 23 December 1965.

7.  The applicant’s personnel records contain a letter, dated 18 June 1975,
from the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, Virginia.  The
letter indicates the applicant was considered for promotion to E-7 by the 1
May 1975 Department of the Army (DA) Standby Enlisted Advisory Board under
the criteria employed by the DA E-7 Promotion Selection Board which
adjourned on 7 October 1974.  He was not selected for promotion.

8.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri, Letter Orders Number RE 7-13, dated 22 July 1975, released the
applicant from active duty on 31 August 1975 and placed him on the retired
list in the rank of SSG.

9.  Item 6a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and item 6b on the applicant’s DD Form
214 shows his rank and pay grade as SSG, E-6.

10.  Chapter 7 of 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.  A centralized
promotion system went into effect for E-7s on 1 June 1970.  Centralized
promotion boards (for promotion consideration to grades E-7, E-8 and E-9)
will select the best qualified Soldier in each MOS for promotion.  They
will recommend a specified number of Soldiers by MOS from zones of
consideration who are the best qualified to meet the needs of the Army.
The total number selected in each MOS is the projected number the Army
needs to maintain its authorized-by-grade strength at any given time.

11.  Army Regulation 600-200 states that prior to the time the centralized
promotion systems went into effect, individuals could have been recommended
for promotion by the unit commander only against authorized position
vacancies existing or projected for a 2-month period within the command as
announced by the promoting authority.  The individual who was next in line
on the order-of-merit-recommended-list to fill the vacancy and for whom a
promotion quota was received would be promoted by the losing commander.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was promoted to SSG, E-6 on 23 December 1965.

2.  The applicant refers to events occurring in 1969.  He contends he went
to appear before E-7 promotion board only to be denied.  It cannot be
determined if he meant he was denied the opportunity to appear before a
board, or if he meant he appeared, but the board did not recommend him for
promotion.  In either case, there is insufficient evidence to show he was
unjustly denied promotion.

3.  The evidence of record shows he was considered for promotion to E-7 by
the May 1975 DA Standby Enlisted Advisory Board which adjourned on 7
October 1974; however, he was not selected for promotion.

4.  Regarding the period of time after promotions to E-7 were centralized
(which should have been all his subsequent promotions considerations after
the 1969 event), without being able to review all the records,
MOS/authorized-by-grade projections and special instructions that were
available to the promotion boards that considered the applicant, the Board
cannot determine why he was not selected for promotion.  The Board is aware
that the latter years during which he was considered for promotion were
years of drawdown after the Vietnam War.  Without evidence to show
otherwise, the Board concludes that the Soldiers who were recommended for
promotion to SFC were, in the promotion boards’ considered opinion, the
best qualified in their MOS.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 August 1975; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 30 August 1978.  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

RD______  DD______  LR______  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.




                                  Richard Dunbar________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060006614                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061207                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |131.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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