Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013982
Original file (20130013982.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013982 


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 records to show he held the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4.

2.  He states he was reduced from SP4/E-4 to private two (PV2)/E-2 and the higher rank was not restored to him before he was discharged.  He states he did nothing wrong and all of his awards should show his rank as SP4.

3.  He provides no additional evidence.

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.  On 29 March 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed initial entry training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 76V (Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist).

3.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 21 September 1983, shows he was promoted (i.e., advanced) to PV2/E-2 effective 1 October 1983.

4.  Item 4 (Assignment Consideration) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) contains a lined-through entry showing he was not recommended for further service (i.e., barred from reenlistment) effective 1 March 1984.

5.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of his DA Form 2-1 contains a lined-through entry showing he was advanced to private first class (PFC)/E-3 effective 29 March 1984.

6.  A 426th Supply and Service Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), 1st endorsement, dated 28 November 1984, subject:  Removal of Bar to Reenlistment, shows his acting battalion commander recommended approval of removal of a bar to reenlistment.  The acting commander stated the applicant's duty performance had greatly improved and had been outstanding for the last 7 months.  The acting commander stated the applicant had taken steps to solve his financial situation as evidenced by receipt of no letters of indebtedness since January 1984.  His records show the request for removal of his bar to reenlistment was approved by the Headquarters, Division Support Command, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), on 10 December 1984.  The approving commander directed removal and destruction of the Bar to Reenlistment Certificate and total obliteration of the remark "not recommended for further service" from the applicant's DA Form 2-1.

7.  A Company D, 426th Supply and Service Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), memorandum, dated 27 November 1984, subject:  Request for Approval of De Facto Status, shows his company commander requested approval of de facto status for the applicant's erroneous promotion to PFC/E-3 for the period 29 March through 30 November 1984.  The company commander stated that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 7-5f, de facto status would be based on the following:

* promotion orders were published
* pay at the higher grade was received
* the applicant accepted the promotion in good faith
* the higher grade was held
* the applicant actually performed duties in the higher grade

8.  On 10 January 1985, the request for de facto status was approved.

9.  U.S. Army Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN) Orders D120-26, dated 25 June 1985, retired the applicant because of physical disability effective 23 July 1985 and placed him on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) effective 24 July 1985.  These orders show his rank as PV2.

10.  On 23 July 1985, he retired and was placed on the TDRL as ordered.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows in:

* item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) – PV2
* item 4b (Pay Grade) – E-2
* item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) – 1 October 1983

11.  U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (previously known as MILPERCEN) Orders D75-20, dated 12 April 1990, removed him from the TDRL and discharged him effective 12 April 1990.  These orders show his rank as PV2.

12.  His records are void of documentation indicating he was advanced to 
SP4/E-4.

13.  Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, provided the requirements for enlisted promotions.

	a.  Paragraph 7-5f provided for granting de facto status to a Soldier who had been erroneously promoted provided certain criteria were met.  Paragraph 7-6 provided that a Soldier who was not qualified for reenlistment would not be promoted.

	b.  Paragraph 7-13 stated, in part, a Soldier must hold the rank/grade of PFC/E-3 to be advanced to SP4/E-4.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not support the applicant's request for correction of his records to show he held the rank/grade of SP4/E-4.

2.  His records show he was erroneously promoted to PFC/E-3 and he was granted de facto status for this erroneous promotion for the period 29 March through 30 November 1984.  It appears that his promotion to PFC/E-3 was erroneous because he was barred from reenlisting.  Although the bar to reenlistment was later removed, there is no evidence showing he was properly 
advanced to PFC/E-3 at a later date prior to being placed on the TDRL.  Because he never properly held the rank/grade of PFC/E-3, there was never a basis for considering him for advancement to SP4/E-4.

3.  His records show the highest rank/grade he properly held was PV2/E-2.  In the absence of evidence showing he was advanced to a higher rank/grade, there is no basis for granting the requested relief.

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)                                         AR20130013982



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013982



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056543C070420

    Original file (2001056543C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    His records also contain Department of the Army, U.S. Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN) Orders Number D174-15, dated 24 September 1984, which placed him on the TDRL as a PFC/pay grade E-3 with an effective date of retirement as 22 October 1984 and with 80% disability. Law provides, in effect, that a service member may not be denied a promotion to which he or she would have otherwise been entitled were it not for the physical disability for which he or she was retired. Consistent with...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002820

    Original file (20110002820.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    It also shows he was promoted to SP4 on 6 December 1968, the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty and he held this rank until he was reduced to PFC for misconduct on 22 August 1969. The evidence of record also confirms the applicant was granted de facto status during the period he erroneously held the rank of SGT from 5 November 1970 to 22 November 1972. Based on the applicant's erroneous promotion to SGT and lacking evidence to corroborate the applicant's claim he did not...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011970

    Original file (20110011970.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was discharged from the Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG) in the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 instead of private (PV2)/E-2. The regulation in effect at the time stated the NGB Form 22 would show the rank and grade at the time of separation. In the absence of official orders that conclusively show he was promoted to SP4/E-4 and held that rank/grade at the time of his discharge from the ARNG, there is insufficient...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017598

    Original file (20060017598.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    By Headquarters, First United States Army memorandum, dated 12 June 1987, the applicant was notified that he was promoted to the rank of MAJ effective 1 October 1985, with time in grade computed from 13 April 1983 (apparently not realizing the applicant had declined promotion in 1983). On 15 May 1992, the Chief, Office of Promotions, Reserve Components, PERSCOM-STL, advised the applicant that Headquarters, First United States Army originally gave him his original date of rank of 13 April...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080003161

    Original file (20080003161.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete military records are not available to the Board. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 13 May 1982, in the applicant’s service personnel records, recommends removal of his bar to reenlistment and his rank is shown as PFC. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, St. Louis, Missouri Orders D-02-012346, dated 18 February 1986, discharged the applicant from the Ready Reserve effective 19 February 1986 in the rank of SP4.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060010699C071029

    Original file (20060010699C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 February 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060010699 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. The applicant requests that his discharge date and rank at discharge be corrected. The evidence of record shows he was advanced to PFC, E-3 by the time he was placed on the TDRL on 21 April 1987.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011763

    Original file (20090011763.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests de facto promotion status for his erroneous promotion to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 during the period from 24 November 2007, the date of his erroneous promotion, to 15 March 2008, the last date he was paid as an E-5. The applicant provides: a. a DD Form 2789 (Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application), dated 27 October 2008; b. a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 27 August 2008; c. a National Guard Bureau (NGB)...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083371C070212

    Original file (2003083371C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was informed that, since the records showed that he had declined promotion to major, his promotion to major had been adjusted to 1 October 1985 and his name was removed from the 1989 and 1990 promotion board results. There is no evidence of record, or evidence provided by the applicant or counsel, that a promotion memorandum was ever issued for LTC. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant is not entitled to any of these claims and this Board specifically...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016814

    Original file (20110016814.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests reinstatement to the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 and correction of her records to show she was promoted to SGT/E-5 with a date of rank (DOR) of September 2004. The DD Form 214 she was issued for this period of service shows her rank as SGT and DOR as 1 February 2002. d. Based on the above, recommend that: * All documents in the applicant's file from 1 February 2002 to 23 November 2004 reflecting the rank of SGT be amended to reflect the rank of PFC * The Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019408

    Original file (20120019408.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's record is void of any evidence showing he was ever promoted to the rank/grade of SP4/E-4 at any time during his service. _______ _ _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) AR20120019408 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)...