Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018484
Original file (20070018484.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  15 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070018484 


	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.




Director



Analyst
      The following members, a quorum, were present:




Chairperson



Member



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, the pay grade on his last DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty) with an effective date of 18 August 1976 be corrected to show E-5.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was a specialist five/pay grade E-5.  He further states he is tired of the injustice imposed on him by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  It affects his physical body, mental health, and his secure income.  He further states this error on such an important document is a further insult to his humanity.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence or official 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.  The applicant's military personnel record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 August 1965 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 91B (medical specialist).  On 1 July 1968, the applicant was released from active duty as an overseas returnee and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group.  He had completed 2 years, 
10 months, and 19 days of active service that was characterized as honorable.  On 12 August 1971, the applicant was discharged from the USAR Control Group.

3.  On 11 February 1976, the applicant enlisted in the USAR Delayed Entry Program in pay grade E-2 for a period of 3 years under the Warrant Officer Flight Training Option (WOFT).


4.  On 16 March 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade 
E-2 for a period of 3 years under the WOFT.

5.  The applicant was promoted to specialist five/pay grade E-5 effective 25 April 1976 based on his entry in the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Fixed Wing or Rotary Wing Aviator Course.

6.  On 3 August 1976, the applicant was administratively eliminated from the Warrant Officer Rotary Wing Aviator Course due to medical reasons.  It was also determined the applicant should not be considered for further flight training.

7.  On 3 August 1976, the applicant, having been found to be medically disqualified for Class 1A flying, requested to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).

8.  On 9 August 1976, the applicant's request for discharge was approved.

9.  The records do not contain orders showing an administrative reduction of the applicant to pay grade E-2.

10.  On 13 August 1976, the applicant was discharged by reason of failure to meet established physical standards, no disability.  He had completed 4 months and 18 days of active service that was characterized as honorable.

11.  Item 6a (Grade, Rate or Rank) of the applicant's DD Form 214 contains the entry "PV2" (private) and Item 6b (Pay Grade) contains the entry "E2."

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, provided for the discharge of individuals who enlist on or after 1 March 1971 for the WOFT option and who, subsequent to enlistment, fail to qualify medically for flight training and the medical condition would permanently disqualify the individual for flight training.

13.  Chapter 7 of Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, provided for the appointment of personnel in pay grade E-4 or below to pay grade E-5 upon entrance into an officer candidate school, the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Fixed Wing or Rotary Wing Aviator Course, or a DA-approved Physicians' Assistant Program.  

14.  Chapter 7 of Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, provided for Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing Aviator pilot trainees who were appointed to a higher grade upon entering training and who failed to complete the course successfully to be reduced to the grade held at time of entry.
15.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  This regulation, in pertinent part, stated that the active duty grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation will be entered in Item 4a and 4b of the 
DD Form 214.

16.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his last DD Form 214 should show he was an E-5 when he was discharged.

2.  The applicant was enlisted in pay grade E-2 in March 1976 and, as provided by regulations in effect at the time, he was promoted to pay grade E-5 based on his entry in WOFT.  

3.  The applicant was administratively eliminated from WOFT effective 3 August 1976.  

4.  The regulations in effect at the time provided for the administrative reduction of individuals who failed to complete WOFT to the grade held at the time of enlistment.  In this case, the applicant was enlisted in pay grade E-2.

5.  Although the record does not contain orders reducing the applicant to pay grade E-2 prior to discharge it is presumed that the Army's administrative processing of the applicant subsequent to his elimination from WOFT is correct.  Therefore, the entries contained in Items 6a and 6b are correct.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

7.  Health care, both physical and mental, of Soldiers subsequent to their discharge is the responsibility of the DVA.  Any claims or issues concerning treatment or compensation for service connected disabilities should be addressed to that Agency.  
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__PHM __  __KSJ__  __JGH__   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.





      ___        PHM                ___
                CHAIRPERSON

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20070018484



5


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA  22202-4508




Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004282

    Original file (20110004282.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 February 2008, the applicant's battalion commander submitted a recommendation to the brigade commander that the applicant be eliminated from aviation training and the U.S. Army for failure to provide a family care plan within the established 30-day timeframe. On 10 June 2008, the Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Warfighting Center and Fort Rucker, notified the applicant that he was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9605934C070209

    Original file (9605934C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that his initial contract obligation as an aviation warrant officer be corrected to reflect 5 years instead of 6 years as it currently states. In the final phase of his WOFT program in August 1992, he was informed that the active duty obligation would be 6 years and he was coerced into signing DA Form 160, Application for Active Duty, obligating him to 6 years. In conjunction with his 3 year enlistment, he signed DA Form 3286-65, Statement for Enlistment--United...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008404C070208

    Original file (20040008404C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that he be granted an age waiver for entry into the Warrant Officer Flight Training (WOFT) program. This official indicated the applicant would turn 35 years of age on 20 July 2004 and far exceeded the age prerequisite for WOFT, which were that applicants must not have reached their 29th birthday at the time the Department of the Army (DA) selection board, and that they must not have exceeded 30 years of age upon commencement of flight training. Army...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02208

    Original file (BC-2005-02208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Based on a review of the facts, we agree she should have met an FEB after her elimination from FWQ training as an FEB would be the only correct action to evaluate retention in (or removal from) training, and qualification for continued aviation service. She failed two opportunities to complete fixed wing training and should have met an FEB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010230

    Original file (20090010230.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 December 2007 he was appointed as a warrant officer one (WO1) in the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) and believes he should have been appointed in a higher rank due to his prior training and service. A second advisory opinion notes that in order to qualify for appointment as a WO2, a candidate must meet all training requirements. Since all Army aviators must be accessed as helicopter pilots (MOS 154A) first and the applicant had no training in helicopters, he could only be...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017541

    Original file (20110017541.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests the Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Course, Aviation Officer Basic Course, and Initial Entry Rotary Wing Course be added to item 14 (Military Education) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 23 December 1999. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the entry "Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Qualification Course, 14 weeks, 1996" to item 14 of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01805

    Original file (BC-2004-01805.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/XOOT recommends the applicant, provided he now meets the minimum flying hour requirements for award of the pilot rating, first secure a helicopter pilot operational flying position and then submit an application to appear before an Aeronautical Review Board in accordance with AFI 11-402, paragraph 2.11. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AETC/DOF recommends that the applicant not be reinstated...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009973

    Original file (20100009973.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 June 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100009973 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his date of rank (DOR) to first lieutenant be corrected to show he was promoted at 18 months time in grade (TIG), on 8 March 2009, as provided for in National Guard Bureau (NGB) memorandum (Policy #10-004), dated 27 January 2010. In view of the above, notwithstanding the opinion provided by NGB, the applicant met the requirements for promotion to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014245

    Original file (20100014245.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he was in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), not the Regular Army (RA), during his active duty service in 1986 and 1987 while attending Warrant Officer Flight Training (WOFT). A DD Form 214 in the applicant's record shows he entered active duty in an enlisted status on 4 April 1986, he completed the Warrant Officer Rotary Wing Aviator Course in October 1987, and he was honorably...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084804C070212

    Original file (2003084804C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although he did not complete the course, he requests that the Board consider why he was not able to do so. The applicant's officer record brief (ORB), dated 29 August 2001, shows completion of a warrant officer orientation and warrant officer entry course, both in the year 2000. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical...