RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	8 January 2008  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011840 


	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. Joyce A. Wright

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Frank C. Jones

Chairperson

Ms. LaVerne Douglas

Member

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

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, that item 3 (Grade, Rate – Rank and Date), of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), be corrected to show the entry "SGT" instead of the entry "PVT2" (Private/E-2).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was told that his SGT/E-5 stripes would be returned to him; however, they were not. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), dated 13 August 2007.  Even though he indicates he has attached a copy of his request to the NPRC in support of this application, the request is not available for the Board's review.

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 military records were lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Records available to the Board were obtained from alternate sources and show he entered active duty on 20 January 1949.  While in service, he served in military occupational specialty 4641, as a Field Wireman.

3.  Section 12 (Appointment, Promotions, or Reductions), of his WD AGO Form 24 (Service Record) shows that he was promoted to sergeant on 13 November 1950 and was reduced to Private, E-2 on 18 January 1952.

4.  The applicant was honorably separated on 16 June 1952, under the provisions of Army Regulation 615-360, in the rank and pay grade of Private, E-2.  

5.  Item 3, of his DD Form 214, shows the entry "PVT2." 

6.  There is no evidence in the available personnel records that show he was promoted back to or recommended for promotion to the rank and pay grade of "SGT/ E-5" prior to his separation from active duty.  

7.  The applicant's GSA Form 6954 (Certification of Military Service) shows his last grade, rank, or rating as "Private."

8.  The applicant provided a copy of a letter from the NPRC, dated 13 August 2007.  He was informed that concerning the return of his sergeant strips, the NPRC had no authority to review and approve amendments or corrections to military records.  This was a function of the Review Boards of the military service departments.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 provides instructions for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that item 3a will be completed to show the active duty grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation.  

10.  Army Regulation 615-360 (Enlisted Personnel/Discharge/General Provisions), in effect at the time, granted authority to certain commanders to order the discharge or release from active military service of enlisted and inducted persons prior to expiration of their term of service; set forth criteria governing the issuance of honorable and general discharge certificates; and provided references to all other regulations governing the separation from the service of persons enlisted, inducted, or ordered into the active military service.  Under this regulation, an honorable discharge certificate would be furnished when the individual met the following qualifications:  had character rating of at least "very good," had efficiency ratings of at least "excellent," had not been convicted by a general court martial, or had not been convicted by more than once by a special court martial.

11.  The regulation above continued by stating, in effect, that it was the policy of the Department of the Army to base evaluation of an individual's service and character on his overall enlistment period rather than on any disqualifying portion of his current service because the type of discharge could significantly influence the individual's civilian rights and eligibility for benefits provided by law.  It was essential, the regulation stated, that all pertinent factors be considered so that the type of discharge would accurately reflect the nature of the service rendered.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant was promoted to SGT/E-5 on 13 November 1950 and was reduced to PVT2 on 18 January 1952, for reasons unknown due to the limited available records.  The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application, that he was again promoted to or recommended for promotion to the rank and pay grade of "SGT/E-5" prior to his separation from active duty on 16 June 1952 or that he was unjustly denied promotion to SGT/E-5.  There also is insufficient evidence to correct item 3a, of his DD Form 214, to show the entry "SGT/E-5", as requested. 

2.  The applicant contends that he was told that his SGT/E-5 stripes would be returned; however, they never were.  The applicant has provided no evidence, and there is none, to support his contention.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MF___  __LD____  __FJ  __  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.




____Frank C. Jones_________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011840
SUFFIX

RECON
NA
DATE BOARDED
20080108
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19520616
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR615-360
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
100
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.