BOARD DATE:	  25 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120022502 


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 her records to show she was promoted to the rank of sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5.

2.  The applicant states her discharge shows her as a specialist four and it should have been SGT.  She states a letter of promotion from the Noncommissioned Officers (NCO) Academy, dated 13 November 1976, proves she should have been promoted to SGT.  While at Fort Dix, NJ, she and her sister signed up for infantry training.  By graduation time from the NCO Academy she had completed all requirements and became the first woman to be infantry qualified.  Once back home with their new unit they were told they could not get their sergeant stripes until someone else was promoted first.  Her commander told her she and her sister would get their promotions a week before discharge if they reenlisted.  She also expressed frustration at being told she needed a 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in order for her case to be processed by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and she still has not been able to obtain a DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter, dated 13 November 1976, from Headquarters, Headquarters Detachment, 817th Personnel and Administration Battalion (FA), James W. Reese U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Center, Upland, Chester, PA 
* Headquarters, First U.S. Army, Fort George G. Meade, MD, Orders 119-230, dated 18 July 1977
* her Honorable Discharge Certificate
* her letter, dated 28 February 2012, to the President of the United States
* two letters, dated 21 July 2012 and 3 October 2012, to the Army Review Boards Agency 

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 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.  On 8 August 1974, she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in pay grade E-3 for a period of 3 years.  She was assigned to the 455th Finance Section, Philadelphia, PA.

3.  On 21 September 1974, she was ordered to 2 weeks active duty for training to complete basic combat training.  She was released from active duty on 5 October 1974 and returned to her Reserve unit of assignment on 5 October 1974.  
On 20 May 1975, she was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/pay grade E-4 in military occupational specialty 71B (Clerk-Typist).

4.  Headquarters, 79th USAR Command (USARCOM), Colmar, PA, Letter Orders Number S-07-239, dated 14 July 1975, ordered her to active duty for annual training (AT) for a period of 14 days to report on 27 July 1975.

5.  A Certificate of Training, dated 8 August 1975, shows she completed the 
79th USARCOM NCO Academy given at Fort Dix, NJ on 8 August 1975.

6.  Headquarters, 79th USARCOM Special Orders Number 43, dated 30 June 1976, transferred her from the 455th Finance Section to the 817th Personnel Administration Battalion, Chester, PA.  

7.  Headquarters, 79th USARCOM Orders 32-110, dated 16 August 1976, ordered her to AT for a period of 12 days to report on 16 August 1976.


8.  Headquarters, 79th USARCOM Orders 46-9, dated 3 September 1976, ordered her to active duty for training (ADT) for a period of 5 days to report on
13 September 1976.

9.  The applicant provided a letter, dated 13 November 1976, from Headquarters, Headquarters Detachment, 817th Personnel and Administration Battalion (FA), to the 79th USARCOM, recommending her for promotion (emphasis added) from 
E-4 to E-5.

10.  Headquarters, First U.S. Army Orders 119-230, dated 18 July 1977, discharged the applicant from the USAR effective 7 August 1977.  The orders identified her as a SP4.

11.  Army Regulation 140-158 (Army Reserve - Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction) states promotions above pay grade E-4 may not exceed the cumulative vacancies for that pay grade within that unit or subordinate commands.  Local position vacancies are not required for promotion board consideration and selection.  However, promotion off the recommended list requires the existence of a position vacancy.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  This regulation stated that a DD Form 214 was issued at the time of separation to each member of the Reserve components called or ordered to active duty or active duty for training for a period of more than 89 days.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  She contends her commander told her she could not be promoted until someone else was promoted first.  She also contends a letter, dated 
13 November 1976, from the NCO Academy proves she should have been promoted to SGT.  

2.  However, the letter dated 13 November 1976 that she submitted is from the 817th Personnel and Administration Battalion and recommends (emphasis added) her for promotion from E-4 to E-5.  If selected, she would have been placed on a recommended list awaiting a position vacancy in order to be promoted.  Such a vacancy would have been created if a SGT in her unit was promoted to staff sergeant, thereby creating a SGT vacancy.

3.  There are no orders in her Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) promoting her to SGT.

4.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR on 7 August 1977 in the grade of SP4.  

5.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, there is no basis for correcting the applicant's records to show she was promoted to grade of SGT.

6.  There is no evidence the applicant was ordered to active duty or that she served a period of active duty more than 89 days that would qualify for issuance of a DD Form 214.  Therefore, she was not issued a DD Form 214 during her period of service in the USAR from 8 August 1974 to 7 August 1977.

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)                                         AR20120022502



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120022502



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1