IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  17 June 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080001833 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction of Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and Item 4b (Pay Grade) on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), from "private first class (PFC)/E-3" to "specialist (SPC)/E-4." 

2.  The applicant states that she out-processed and cleared her last duty station as a SPC/E-4 and that her rank/grade are erroneously listed as PFC/E-3.

3.  The applicant provided the following additional documentary evidence in support of her application:

	a.  Orders 041-23, dated 10 February 1999, Enlistment Orders. 

	b.  Orders 181-338, dated 18 June 1999, Reassignment Orders.

	c.  Orders 295-00108, dated 22 October 1999, Reassignment Orders.

	d.  Orders 018-00128, dated 18 January 2000, Amendment Orders.

	e.  Orders 033-050, dated 2 February 2000, Amendment Orders.  

	f.  Installation Clearance Record, dated 18 December 2000. 




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 she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve for a period of 8 years on 22 January 1999 under the Delayed Entry Program (DEP).  The applicant's DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, Armed Forces of the United States), dated 22 January 1999, shows she enlisted in the rank/grade of SPC/E-4. 

3.  On 23 February 1999, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 6 years.  She completed basic combat training as a SPC/E-4 at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and advanced individual training, at Fort Eustis, Virginia, also as a SPC/E-4, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67 (UH-60 Helicopter Repairman).  

4.  U.S. Army Transportation Center, Fort Eustis, Virginia, Orders 295-00108, dated 22 October 1999, show that after completion of MOS training, the applicant was placed on assignment, as a SPC/E-4, to the 236th Medical Company (Air Ambulance), Germany, effective 29 November 1999 (later amended to 22 February 2000).

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not available for review with this case.  However, on 18 December 2000, the U.S. Army Europe, Kaiserslautern Transition Center, published Orders 353-03, releasing the applicant from active duty in the rank/grade of PFC/E-3, and reassigning her to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group, effective 28 December 2000.

6.  The applicant’s DD Form 2646 (Preseparation Counseling Checklist), dated 18 December 2000, shows that at the time she received basic preseparation counseling, her rank and grade were listed as PFC/E-3. 

7.  The applicant’s Installation Clearance Record, dated 18 December 2000, shows the applicant’s rank/grade as SPC/E-4, and that she out-processed her installation from 19 December 2000 to 27 December 2000.

8.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows she was honorably released from active duty on 28 December 2000, in accordance with chapter 8 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of pregnancy.  Items 4a and 4b show her rank and grade as SPC and E-3 respectively.  Furthermore, Item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) of her DD Form 214 shows the entry “1999 12 17” indication that her date of rank to PFC/E-3 was 17 December 1999.

9.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), dated 3 March 1999 (prepared), shows the applicant’s grade as “SP4” and her date of rank as 22 February 1999 (the date she reenlisted).

10.  There are no Orders in the applicant’s records that show she was reduced to PFC/E-3.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The regulation directs, in pertinent part, that the purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of their military service.  It is important that information entered on the form should be complete and accurate.  The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty to include attendance at basic and advanced training.  It also states, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will be prepared for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from active duty.  The active duty grade or rank and pay grade at the time of separation is entered in Item 4 and the effective date of promotion to the current pay grade (from the most recent promotion or reduction order) is entered in Item 12h.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

The evidence of record shows that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 February 1999 as a SPC/E-4.  However, her record contains conflicting data regarding her rank/grade.  Some of her orders show her rank/grade as PFC/E-3 while others show SPC/E-4.  Furthermore, it appears that the applicant was reduced to PFC/E-3 on 17 December 1999; yet, her record is void of the reduction order.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, her rank and grade shown on her DD Form 214 are presumed to be correct.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant the requested relief in this case  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__xxx___  __xxx___  __xxx___  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.



							XXX
       _   _______   ___
       CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080001833



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080001833



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1