RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  16 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007203 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Shirley L. Powell

Chairperson

Mr. James E. Anderholm

Member

Mr. Joe R. Schroeder

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 grade on his finance records from staff sergeant (SSG)/pay grade E-6 to sergeant first class (SFC)/pay grade E-7 and retroactive payment of his retired pay at the E-7 grade since he retired on 1 December 1967.

2.  The applicant states that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows his grade as SFC/pay grade E-7 while his Retiree Account Statement shows his grade as SSG/pay grade E-6.  He adds that he does not believe he has been receiving the full retirement pay to which he is entitled. 

3.  The applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214; a copy of his January 2007 DFAS-CL Form 7220 (Retiree Account Statement); and a copy of a self-authored letter, dated 11 January 2007, to DFAS requesting correction of his pay grade from SSG to SFC on his Retiree Account Statement in support of his application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 July 1942 and was honorably discharged on 4 October 1945.  After a break in service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 May 1950 and followed with a series of reenlistments on 7 May 1953, 7 May 1959, and on 7 May 1965.  He was retired and transferred to the U.S. Army Control Group (Retired) on 30 November 1967 in the rank of SFC/pay grade E-6.



3.  The applicant's records show his rank, date of rank, and grade history as follows:

	a.  Corporal (CPL), permanent grade (P), pay grade E-4 with a date of rank of 31 August 1950, in accordance with Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army Enlistment Program);

	b.  Sergeant First Class (SFC), temporary grade (T), pay grade E-6 with a date of rank of 3 March 1953, in accordance with Headquarters, Fort Devens, Massachusetts, Special Orders 88, dated 4 May 1959; and

	c.  Sergeant First Class (SFC), permanent grade (P), pay grade E-6 with a date of rank of 3 March 1953, in accordance with paragraph 7-22 of Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System) and Army Regulation 601-210.

4.  Headquarters, Palatinate District, letter dated 26 May 1967, announced the applicant's selection for promotion to pay grade E-7 by the District Enlisted Selection Board that convened on 25 May 1967.  The applicant was assigned sequence number 4 for promotion depending on availability of promotion quotas and cancellation of requisition items.

5.  Headquarters, Palatinate District, letter dated 13 July 1967, announced the applicant's selection for promotion to pay grade E-7 by the District Enlisted Selection Board that convened on 13 July 1967.  The applicant was assigned sequence number 3 for promotion, depending on the availability of promotion quotas and cancellation of requisition items. 

6.  On 29 September 1967, the applicant submitted his request for retirement from the Army effective 30 November 1967.

7.  On 23 October 1967, the applicant signed a statement declining his recommendation for promotion to pay grade E-7 under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200 and stated that he was retiring and did not wish to have a two-year service obligation that could result from his promotion to pay grade E-7. 

8.  On 17 November 1967, the applicant's request for retirement was approved and announced in an extract to Department of the Army Special Orders 226, dated 17 November 1967.  The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued confirms that he was retired from the Army effective 30 November 1967 and erroneously listed his pay grade and rank as E-7.

9.  In 1958, the Army changed the enlisted rank structure.  This resulted in the rank title of master sergeant (MSG) corresponding with the pay grade of E-8; the rank title of SFC corresponding to the pay grade E-7; and the rank title of staff sergeant (SSG) corresponding to the pay grade E-6.  However, this structure change did not impact either the rank title or the pay grade of personnel that had been promoted prior to the change, which is the operative policy in this case.  In other words, unless subsequently promoted under the new system, members who had been promoted to MSG and SFC prior to the 1958 change retained those rank titles and the pay grades that were applicable prior to the change, which were E-7 for MSG and E-6 for SFC

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel as well as policy and procedures pertaining to voluntary retirement.  It stated, in pertinent parts, that individuals who are promoted to pay grade of E-7, E-8, or E-9, incur a two year service obligation and this obligation must be completed prior to voluntary retirement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is entitled to correction of his grade on his finance records from SSG/pay grade E-6 to SFC/pay grade E-7 and retroactive payment of his retired pay at the E-7 grade since he retired on 1 December 1967.

2.  At the time of the 1958 change to the Army’s enlisted structure, the governing policy provided for members, who had been promoted to MSG and SFC prior to the 1958 change, to retain those rank titles and the pay grades that were applicable prior to the change, which were E-7 for MSG and E-6 for SFC, unless they were subsequently promoted under the new system.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was promoted to the rank of SFC with a corresponding pay grade of E-6 on 3 March 1953, and that this is the highest rank and pay grade he held on active duty.  Evidence of records also shows that he was not promoted subsequent to the 1958 Army enlisted rank structure change.  He held the rank of SFC and pay grade E-6 on the date of his release from active duty for the purpose of retirement on 30 November 1967, and was placed on the Retired List in that rank and pay grade on 1 December 1967.  

4.  The evidence of record further confirms that the applicant voluntarily submitted his application for retirement and voluntarily submitted his memorandum to decline the recommendation for his promotion to SFC/pay grade E-7.  Therefore, there is no evidence or equity basis for changing the pay grade of E-6 that is currently recorded in the applicant's Retiree Account Statement and overall finance records. 

5.  Although no tangible benefits would result, the applicant may wish to contact any Army organization that incorrectly lists his rank title as SSG and request that they change their mailing lists to reflect his proper rank title of SFC, as accurately reflected on his records during his military service.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__slp___  __jea___  __jrs___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




							Shirley L. Powell
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070007203
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071016
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
129.0400
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.