IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    22 August 2013 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130000641 


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 his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show he held the rank of sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5 vice specialist five (SP5).

2.  The applicant states he served with the 11th General Support Aviation Company, 1st Cavalry Division, in Vietnam from July 1966 to July 1967.  The individual he replaced in Vietnam was the noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) of the section and he held the rank of SGT.  Since he (the applicant) assumed the position of NCOIC, he should have been appointed to the rank of SGT under current Army standards.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 June 1965 for a period of 3 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 16B (Hercules Missile Crewman) on 1 November 1965.  He was subsequently awarded MOS 52B (Power Plant Operator and Mechanic) on 2 March 1966.

3.  Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), Special Orders Number 21, dated 21 January 1967, appointed the applicant to the temporary grade of SP5/E-5 in primary MOS 52B3O effective 21 January 1967.

4.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in:

	a.  item 2 (Grade), SP5/E-5;

	b.  item 3 (Date of Rank (DOR)), 21 January 1967;

	c.  item 31 (Foreign Service), Vietnam from 14 July 1966 through 10 July 1967;

	d.  item 33 (Appointments and Reductions):

* SP5/E-5 (temporary) – DOR 21 January 1967
* SP5/E-5 (permanent) – DOR 21 January 1968

   e.  item 38 (Record of Assignments), from 17 July 1966 through 8 July 1967:

* duty MOS – 52B3O
* principle duty – powerman (Power Generator Specialist)
* organization – 11th General Support Aviation Company, 1st Cavalry Division

5.  On 28 August 1967, the applicant requested permissive reassignment to Fort Dix, NJ.  His signature block shows his rank as SP5.

6.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was honorably released from active duty on 14 June 1968.  He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 28 days of active service.  It also shows in:

	a.  item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank), SP5 (permanent);

	b.  item 5b (Pay Grade), E-5;
	c.  item 6 (DOR), 21 January 1967; and

	d.  item 30 (Remarks), "Item 6:  Date of Appointment 21 Jan 68 [21 January 1968]."

7.  ABCMR Docket Number AC98-08428, dated 5 August 1998, affirmed the applicant's promotion to SP5/E-5 (temporary) effective 21 January 1967 vice November 1966 when he contended he relieved a Soldier in pay grade E-5.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures regarding separation documents.  It also established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  It stated the purpose of a separation document was to provide the individual with documentary evidence of his or her military service at the time of separation.

	a.  Section III (Instructions for Preparation and Distribution of the Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) contained guidance for preparation of the DD Form 214.

	b.  It states that all available records would be used as a basis for preparation of the DD Form 214, including the Enlisted Qualification Record, Officer Qualification Record, and orders.  The instructions for:

		(1)  item 5a stated to enter the grade in which serving at the time of separation, indicating whether permanent or temporary (e.g., SP5 (P));

   	(2)  item 5b stated to enter the pay grade;

   	(3)  item 6 stated to enter the DOR for the grade shown in item 5a; and

		(4)  item 30 stated the "Remarks" section would be used to complete entries too long for their respective items.  Specifically, if the grade shown in item 5 was not permanent, enter the permanent grade, date of appointment, and date of rank; otherwise enter the date of appointment to the permanent grade.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he was separated in the rank of SGT/E-5 because he assumed an NCOIC position and the individual he replaced held the rank of SGT.

2.  There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was appointed or promoted to the rank of SGT/E-5.
3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was appointed to the rank of SP5/E-5 (temporary) on 21 January 1967 and promoted to the rank of SP5/E-5 (permanent) on 21 January 1968.  The applicant's DD Form 214 properly shows the permanent rank, pay grade, initial date of appointment (DOR), and date of permanent appointment in items 5a, 5b, 6, and 30, respectively.

4.  The evidence of record shows the DD Form 214 provides the individual with documentary evidence of his or her military service at the time of separation (emphasis added).  Thus, there is no basis for correcting the rank shown on his DD Form 214 based on "current Army standards."

5.  Therefore, there is no basis for correcting the applicant's DD Form 214.

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 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)                                         AR20130000641



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130000641



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1