RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  10 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012133 


	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:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Mr. Jerome L. Pionk

Member

Mr. Donald W. Steenfott

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 correction of Item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and Item 5b (Pay Grade) on his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), from "private first class (PFC)/E-3" to "specialist four (SP4)/E-4." 

2.  The applicant states that his rank and pay grade are erroneously listed as PFC/E-3.

3.  The applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, dated 8 August 1970, 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 10 September 1969 in the grade of private/E-1.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76A (Supply Clerk).  He was honorably released from the Army for hardship and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Stand-By) on 8 August 1970.

3.  The applicant’s records further show that upon successful completion of basic combat and advanced individual training, he was promoted to the rank of private/E-2, effective 11 November 1969 in accordance with paragraph 7-19b of Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), accelerated advancement. 


4.  Headquarters, United State Army Hospital, Fort Polk, Louisiana, Special Orders Number 19, dated 28 January 1970; show that the applicant was promoted to the rank of PFC/E-3 in accordance with paragraph 7-20 of Army Regulation 600-200. 

5.  On 19 March 1970, the applicant arrived in Germany and was assigned to Headquarters and Service Battery, 6th Battalion, 10th Field Artillery, in the rank of PFC/E-3.

6.  On or about 7 June 1970, the applicant departed Germany, in the grade of PFC/E-3 and arrived at Fort Lewis, Washington.  He was granted a Hardship Discharge in accordance with chapter 6, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).

7.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Transition Center, Infantry and Fort Lewis, Fort Lewis, Washington, Special Orders Number 220, dated 8 August 1970, show the applicant was assigned to the U.S. Army Transition Point, effective 8 August 1970.  The standard name line on the Special Orders listed the applicant’s grade as “SP4.”

8.  Office of the Adjutant General, U.S. Army Administration Center, St. Louis, Missouri, Letter Orders Number 11-1086438, 13 November 1970, relieved the applicant from his obligation in the Standby Reserve of the U.S. Army Control Group and honorably discharged him effective 30 November 1970.  The standard name line on the Letter Orders listed the applicant’s grade as “PFC.”

9.  Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that the highest rank the applicant attained during his military service was PFC/E-3.

10.  There are no Special Orders in the applicant’s records that show he was promoted to SP4/E-4.

11.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, prescribed policies, responsibilities, and procedures pertaining to career management of Army enlisted personnel.  Chapter 7 contained Army-wide promotion policy and procedures.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the criteria for promotion to E-4 were 24 months “Time in Service” and 6 months “Time in Grade” as an E-3.  The waiverable criteria for promotion to E-4 were 15 months “Time in Service” and 3 months “Time in Grade.”  Promotion of enlisted 


personnel to grade E-3 through E-9, appointments, grade reductions, and grade 
restorations were announced in routine orders.  Unit orders were issued for promotions to grade E-3 and E-4.  Orders announcing promotion to grade E-3 or E-4 were usually published in advance of the date the Soldier actually achieved promotion eligibility. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his rank and grade should be corrected to show SP4/E-4 instead of PFC/E-3.

2.  Evidence of record shows that the highest rank the applicant attained during his military service was PFC/E-3.  His records do not contain Special Orders that show he was promoted to SP4/E-4 and there is no entry on his DA Form 20 that shows he was promoted to SP4/E-4.  Evidence of record further shows that the applicant did not attain the minimum number of months required to be promoted to SP4/E-4, even with a waiver. 

3.  There is no evidence in the available records nor did the applicant provide documentation to substantiate his SP4/E-4 grade.  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 did not submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to relief. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__wdp___  __jlp___  __dws___  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.



							William D. Powers
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070012133
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080110
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
100.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.