RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  25 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008735 


	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

Ms. Deyon D. Battle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Mr. Scott W. Faught

Member

Mr. Roland S. Venable

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 records to show that he was awarded a 91C3O (clinical specialist) primary military occupational specialty (PMOS).  

2.  The applicant states that he was in the very last 91C3O class at Letterman Army Medical Center.  He states that he graduated in 1978.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation 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.  On 24 November 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Army in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training and on 21 March 1976, he was awarded a medical specialist (91B1O) PMOS. 

3.  The applicant was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 24 March 1976; to the pay grade of E-3 on 21 June 1976; and to the pay grade of E-4 on 5 December 1977.

4.  On 13 March 1978, the applicant's 91B1O PMOS was withdrawn and he was awarded a 91C1O (clinical specialist) PMOS.





5.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 23 November 1978, at the expiration of his term of service.  The Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214) that he was furnished at the time of his REFRAD shows his PMOS as 91C1O.

6.  The available records fail to show that the applicant was ever awarded a 91C3O PMOS.

7.  Army Regulation 611-201 is the authority for enlisted career management fields and MOSs.  Paragraph 1-6 provides that the MOS code consists of five basic characters with provisions for optional use of four additional characters when further occupation identification is needed.  The first characters are comprised of two numbers and one letter.  Collectively, they identify the MOS without regard to level of skill.  The fourth character is a number.  In combination with the preceding three characters, it indicates skill level within the MOS.  Skill level 1 identifies helper or entry level positions requiring performance of simple tasks under general supervision, or performance of more difficult tasks under close supervision.  Skill level 2 identifies positions requiring performance of difficult tasks under general supervision.  This represents the fully qualified, or journeyman level of non-supervisory skill.  Skill level 3 identifies positions requiring performance tasks that are significantly different from, and in addition to, tasks performed as skill level 2 and that require a minimum of supervision.  This represents the advanced journeyman level of non-supervisory skill.  Skill level 4 identifies first line supervisory positions that require relatively detailed knowledge of the tasks performed by the subordinate personnel in skill level 1, 2, and 3.  Skill level 5 identifies higher level, managerial-type supervisory positions that require a broad, general knowledge of the tasks performed at all subordinate levels in order to coordinate and give direction to work activities.  Skill level 1 identifies positions authorized in pay grades E-3 and E-4; skill level 2 identifies positions authorized in grade E-5; skill level 3 identifies positions authorized in pay grade E-6; skill level 4 identifies positions authorized in pay grade E-7; and skill level 5 identifies positions authorized in pay grades E-8 and E-9.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A review of the available records fail to show that the applicant was ever awarded a 91C3O PMOS.





2.  His contentions have been noted.  However, his records show that he was initially awarded a 91B1O PMOS.  On 13 March 1978, his 91B1O PMOS was withdrawn and he was awarded a 91C1O PMOS.  There is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence to support his contention that he awarded a 91C3O PMOS while he was in the Army.

3.  Additionally, in accordance with the applicable regulation, skill level 1 identifies positions authorized in pay grades E-3 and E-4.  At the time that the applicant was REFRAD, he was serving in the pay grade of E-4; therefore, his skill level would have been 1, as currently reflected in his official military personnel file.  Skill level 3 identifies positions authorized in pay grade E-6.  Consequently, he could not have been awarded a 91C3O PMOS.

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LDS__  __RSV___  __SWF__  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.




___Linda D. Simmons___
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070008725
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071025
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.  1021
100.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
2.  6
100.0500/MOS DESIGNATION
3.

4.

5.

6.