IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014872 


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 his rank as sergeant (SGT) vice specialist five (SP5).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his military occupational specialty (MOS) was 67N (UH1 Helicopter Repairman) but he also had to work as a section chief and supervise/lead anywhere from 1 to 3 personnel.  He was made aware that all the SP5 ranks were converted to SGT in the 1980s and he would like his rank adjusted accordingly because it has always been his dream to hold the rank of SGT.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) dated 1 December 1969, and a DA Form 2166 (Enlisted Efficiency Report) dated 11 December 1969.

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 30 August 1968.  After completing his initial entry training, he was awarded MOS 67N.

3.  Special Orders (SO) Number 39, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Aviation School, Fort Rucker, AL on 10 February 1969, appointed him/promoted him to the permanent rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3.

4.  SO Number 184, issued by Headquarters, 14th Transportation Battalion, Vietnam on 20 July 1969, appointed/promoted him to the temporary rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 in MOS 67N.

5.  SO Number 318, issued by Headquarters, 14th Transportation Battalion, Vietnam on 21 December 1969 promoted him to the temporary rank/grade of SP5/E-5 in MOS 67N.

6.  Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) of his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does not indicate he was ever laterally appointed to the rank of SGT.

7.  His DD Form 214 shows he was honorably released from active duty on 30 July 1971.  Item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and item 5b (Pay Grade) of his DD Form 214 shows his rank/grade as "SP5" and "E5," respectively.

8.  Army Regulation 611-201 (Enlisted Career Management Fields and MOS), which identified the standard of grade authorizations for various military specialties, noted, as late as 1979, that technical MOSs [MOS 67N was considered a technical MOS] were authorized a rank of SP5, not SGT, upon promotion to pay grade E-5.

9.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), in effect at the time, established the policies and provisions for lateral appointments and the appointment of acting noncommissioned officers (NCO).  

	a.  The regulation stated that unit commanders could appoint qualified individuals as acting corporals (E-4) and acting SGTs (E-5) to serve in position vacancies existing in their units, including those resulting from temporary absences of assigned NCOs.  Appointment of acting NCOs and the termination of such status was to be announced in orders issued by the appointing authority. An acting NCO's status terminated upon reassignment to another unit, at the discretion of the unit commander who made the appointment, and upon assignment of a regularly promoted NCO to the position.  

	b.  Lateral appointments from specialist to NCO grades were authorized when the standards of grade authorization changed to delete provisions for specialist in that pay grade and MOS.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) at the time established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.  It states that the grade in which serving at the time of separation would be entered in item 5a.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The specialist ranks were created to reward personnel with higher degrees of experience and technical knowledge.  Appointment to either specialist or NCO status was determined by MOS.  Different MOSs had various transition points and in some MOSs, a Soldier was appointed as either a specialist or NCO, depending on which particular position or "slot" that he filled in his organization.  The standard of grade documentation at the time limited individuals in technical MOSs to the rank of SP5 upon promotion to pay grade E-5.

2.  Special orders promoted the applicant to the rank of SP5.  There is no evidence in his records that he was laterally appointed to or held the rank of SGT at the time of his separation.  

3.  His DD Form 214 correctly shows his rank/grade as SP5/E-5, which properly and accurately reflected his rank and the conditions that existed at the time of his discharge.  As such there is no error, inequity, or injustice present in his record.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis to granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20140014872



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014872



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1