IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 January 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080016845


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, in effect, that his military records be corrected to reflect his military occupational specialty (MOS) as 45K (Tank Turret Repairer) instead of 19K (M1 Armor Crewman) as is currently reflected on his Army/American Council on Education Registry Transcript System (ARRTS) transcript.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that MOS 19K was mistakenly placed under his career field on his AARTS transcript, which shows his last duty position was in MOS 19K.  He claims this is an incorrect MOS and that his correct MOS is 45K.  He states that this mistake resulted in his missing the opportunity to be promoted to sergeant first class (SFC) and in his premature retirement.  

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his application:  ARRTS Transcript; Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty 
(DD Form 214); Birth Certificate; Identification Cards (illegible); and National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) Letter, dated 9 September 2008.


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 record shows that he initially enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) and entered active duty on 15 July 1975, and that he was trained in and awarded MOS 45K.  

3.  On 1 November 1991, the applicant was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant (SSG) in MOS 45K.

4.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) includes a Noncommissioned Officer Enlisted Evaluation Report (NCOER), dated 1 November 1994, which evaluated the applicant as a Platoon Sergeant in duty MOS 63H (Track Vehicle Repairer) for the period November 1993 through October 1994.  It also contains his final NCOER, dated 15 August 1997, which rated him as a Regimental Budget Analyst in MOS 73D (Accounting Specialist) for the period August 1996 to July 1997.  Both of these documents correctly list his primary MOS (PMOS) as “45K”.

5.  There are no evaluation reports on file that indicate the applicant was ever evaluated in MOS 19K, and his record fails to show he was ever awarded or held MOS 19K as a PMOS, secondary MOS (SMOS) or additional MOS (AMOS), or that he was ever considered for promotion in MOS 19K.

6.  On 30 June 1998, the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement, in the rank of SSG.  The DD Form 214 issued to him at that time contains an entry in Item 11 (Primary Specialty) that shows he served in MOS 45K for 22 years and 11 months, his entire military service career.  


7.  During the processing of this case, a staff member of the Board contacted an official from the Army Human Resources Command (AHRC), Alexandria, Virginia, (HRC-Alexandria) Enlisted Promotions Branch.  This enlisted promotion official confirmed the applicant was never in the zone for consideration for promotion to SFC prior to his retirement.   

8.  The applicant provides a copy of his ARRTS transcript issued on 25 February 2008, nearly ten years after his retirement.  This document is a “Personal Web Transcript" and not an official Army record.  It shows the applicant held MOS 45K from September 1976 through September 1996 and MOS “19K” from September 1996 to August 1998.  It also lists MOS 63H (DS Maintenance Supervisor) as a duty MOS; however, there is no indication it was ever awarded as a PMOS, SMOS or AMOS.  The AARTS official website states that its purpose is to provide transcripts of military training and experience to Soldiers and Veterans of the Army, Army National Guard and the United States Army Reserve.  It also provides that on occasion, course omissions and other discrepancies do occur in the data reported to AARTS and it provides the appropriate procedures for correcting this document through that agency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that his record should be corrected to show he held MOS 45K instead of 19K, and that this error caused him to miss promotion consideration in his proper career field has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant held the PMOS of 45K for his entire military career, and that he held this PMOS at the time of his retirement.  It also shows that he last served and was evaluated in MOS 73D based on his performing duties as a regimental budget analyst from August 1996 through July 1997, and that he had previously been rated in duty MOS 63H during the period November 1993 through October 1994, based on his performance of duties as a platoon sergeant of a maintenance platoon.  There is no evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that shows he ever held MOS 19K as a PMOS, SMOS or AMOS at anytime during his career, or that he was ever denied promotion consideration to SFC in MOS 45K as a result of his working in different MOSs.  As confirmed by HRC-Alexandria enlisted promotion officials, the applicant was never in a zone of consideration for promotion to SFC.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.


3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.

4.  The applicant is advised that his AARTS transcript is not an official 
Army record and was not used in personnel management decisions 
during his military service.  Any discrepancies in this transcript should be resolved as outlined in the instructions found on the ARRTS homepage (https://aarts.army.mil.Corrections.htm.).  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ___x____  ____x___  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.




      _______ _ x  _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20080016845



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080016845



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1