IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015621 


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, correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period ending 31 March 1976 to show he was retired in the rank/grade of Chief Warrant Officer Three (CW3)/W-3.

2.  The applicant states items 6a and 6b (Grade, Rate or Rank/Pay Grade) of his DD Form 214 for the period ending on 31 March 1976 show his retired rank and grade as Chief Warrant Officer 2 (CW2)/W-2.  However, his military identification card (ID) shows his retired rank and grade as CW3/W-3.  He contends that his DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 March 1976 is in error because his ID and DD Form 214 should show the same rank/grade.  If his retired pay was based upon his DD Form 214, then his pay was in error from 1976 to 1999 when he combined his retired pay with his Civil Service retirement.

3.  The applicant provides Letter Orders Number S3-111, dated 11 March 1976, and his DD Form 214 for the period ending on 31 March 1976.

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.  After having previous active service in the Regular Air Force, the applicant applied for appointment as a warrant officer in the Army.  His record contains a letter, titled "Application for Appointment as a Warrant Officer, U.S. Army Reserve (USAR)," issued by Headquarters, Third, U.S. Army, Fort McPherson, Georgia on 4 October 1966, which informed the applicant that his application for appointment with concurrent call to active duty had been forwarded to a convening board of officers for consideration.  However, the Assistant Adjutant General requested that he only be boarded in military occupational specialty (MOS) 631A (Automotive Maintenance Technician), as he had not been considered fully qualified in MOSs 632A (Automotive Repair Technician) and 621A (Engineer Equipment Repair Technician).

3.  His DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel) shows he was appointed as a Reserve Warrant Officer in the grade of W01 on 26 January 1967.

4.  His DA Forms 66 (Officer Qualification Record) and DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) indicate he was a dual component Soldier, serving as a warrant officer in both the USAR and the Army of the United States (AUS).   These forms also show:

* he was appointed as a warrant officer in the USAR and AUS on 
26 January 1967
* he was promoted to CW2 in the AUS on 1 March 1968
* he was promoted to CW2 in the USAR on 26 January 1970

5.  His record contains a letter of notification of temporary promotion status, dated 8 November 1971.  This letter informed him that a Department of the Army (DA) Promotion Selection Board convened to consider officers in his grade for temporary promotion to the next higher grade.  He was among the officers considered but not selected, and his non-selection constituted a pass-over for promotion.  He was informed that, provided he was eligible, he would be considered by the next consecutive selection board.

6.  His record contains a letter titled "Release from Active Duty," dated 1 May 1973.  This letter informed him that a DA Promotion Selection Board had convened on 6 November 1972 to consider officers for temporary AUS promotion to CW3.  The applicant was among those considered; however, he was not found fully qualified for promotion.  His non-selection constituted the second time he was found not fully qualified; therefore, he was required to be released from active duty within 90 days of his receipt of the notification.

7.  His record contains a letter titled "Reconsideration for Promotion," dated     
14 August 1973.  This letter states he had been reconsidered for promotion by a DA Standby Advisory Board (STAB) to the rank of CW3 under the same criteria and instructions established for the regularly constituted selection boards that adjourned on 30 July 1971 and 14 December 1972.  The STAB did not recommend him for promotion; therefore, his promotion status recommended by the previous promotion boards remained unchanged.

8.  His record contains a letter titled "Release from Active Duty," dated 
7 September 1973.  This letter informed him that he had been twice non-selected for temporary promotion to CW3 in the AUS and that DA policy required the release from active duty of Reserve officers who were twice non-selected for temporary promotion to the next higher grade.  However, since he would have completed over 18 years of active Federal service on the date he would otherwise be released, he would be retained on active duty until 31 October 1975, unless he requested an earlier release or was released for any other reason.  He was also informed that he was eligible to retire on 1 October 1975 or 1 November 1975, whichever he preferred.  

9.  His record contains a letter titled "Reconsideration for Promotion," dated     
20 February 1974.  This letter states he had been reconsidered for promotion by a DA STAB to the rank of CW3 under the same criteria and instructions established for the regularly constituted selection boards which adjourned on    30 July 1971 and 14 December 1972.  The STAB did not recommend him for promotion; therefore, his promotion status recommended by the previous promotion boards remained unchanged.

10.  On 4 April 1974, the applicant applied to the ABCMR and requested he be given consideration for promotion to CW3 on the basis that four commissioned officers and one warrant officer submitted false efficiency reports into his record because they held racist and discriminatory views.  

11.  His record contains correspondence issued by the Officer Promotions Section entitled "Cases Forwarded by the ABCMR to the Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN) for Review," dated 16 April 1975.  This letter or advisory opinion states:

	a.  The applicant was considered but not recommended for promotion to the grade of CW3, AUS by DA Promotion Selection Boards that adjourned on 30 July 1971 and 14 December 1972, respectively.  
	b.  He was afforded promotion reconsideration under the criteria of these boards by the 25 June 1973 STAB, based on voided efficiency reports for the periods 9 January 1969 to 22 October 1969 and 6 March 1970 to 16 August 1970.  He was again reconsidered by a STAB that adjourned on 29 January 1974, based on voided efficiency reports for the periods 23 October 1969 to        5 March 1970 and 15 June 1971 to 1 January 1972.  Both the 25 June 1973 STAB and the 29 January 1974 STAB determined that his promotion status should remain unchanged from the findings of the regularly constituted boards.  

	c.  A letter to the applicant, dated 13 December 1971, containing adverse remarks, was submitted as an enclosure to an appeal of his efficiency reports on 28 January 1972.  This document was filed in the efficiency section of his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) when he was considered for promotion by the 
25 June 1973 and 29 January 1974 STABs.  The adverse remarks were deleted from his records on 10 October 1974.  For these reasons the applicant's records were again submitted to a STAB for reconsideration of his promotion criteria for both the 30 July 1971 and 14 December 1972 regularly constituted selection boards.  The STAB adjourned on 12 February 1975 and determined that his promotion status should remain unchanged.  

12.  On 30 April 1975, the ABCMR determined that there was insufficient evidence presented to present a probable material error or injustice in his records; therefore his application was denied.  

13.  His record contains a DA Form 3713 (Data for Retired Pay), dated 14 August 1975, which shows his active duty grade as CW2, his permanent grade as CW2, and his retired grade as CW2.  This form also shows he would be placed on the retired list on 1 November 1975 with 20 years, 1 month, and 16 days of creditable service for retired pay.  

14.  Letter Orders Number S8-304, issued by MILPERCEN on 14 August 1975, state he was, upon his application, retired from active service, relieved from assignment and duty, and placed on the retired list as a CW2 effective                1 November 1975.  On the date he is placed on the retired list, he would be transferred to the Retired Reserve and assigned to the USAR Control Group (Retired).  These orders also show he held the temporary AUS grade of CW2, the permanent USAR grade of CW2, and would be retired as a CW2 effective 
31 October 1975 and placed on the Retired List on 1 November 1975.  However, the evidence of record indicates that these orders were not executed.  

15.  His DA Form 66 and DA Form 2-1 show he was promoted to CW3 in the USAR on 25 January 1976.

16.  His record contains a DA Form 3713, dated 11 March 1976, which shows his active duty grade as CW2, his permanent grade as CW3, and his retired grade as CW3.  This form also shows he would be placed on the Retired List on 1 April 1976, with 20 years, 6 months, and 16 days of creditable service for retired pay.  

17.  Letter Orders Number S3-111, issued by MILPERCEN on 11 March 1976, state he was, upon his application, retired from active service, relieved from assignment and duty, and placed on the retired list as a CW3 effective 
31 March 1976.  On the date he is placed on the retired list, he would be transferred to the USAR Retired Reserve and assigned to USAR Control Group (Retired).  These orders also show he held the temporary AUS grade of CW2, the permanent USAR grade of CW3 and would be retired as a CW3 effective 
31 March 1976 and placed on the Retired List on 1 April 1976.  

18.  His DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 March 1976 shows he was honorably retired from active duty in the AUS on 31 March 1976.  Items 6a and 6b show his rank and grade upon his retirement were CW2 and W2, respectively.

19.  The applicant reapplied to the ABCMR for reconsideration of his previous request and it appears his application was considered with the applications of several other applicants who were considered by the ABCMR on 10 December 1975 as part of a class action.  In his application, the applicant requested, in effect, that his military records be corrected to show he was promoted to the grade of CW3 in the AUS, under the primary zone of the 1975 AUS selection criteria.  However, on 6 October 1976, the ABCMR denied his request for promotion to CW3 in the AUS.

20.  Army Regulation 600-39 prescribed policies governing the Army's Dual Component Personnel Management Program.  This program allowed the Department of the Army to quickly meet mobilization requirements through procurement of trained commissioned and warrant officers from enlisted and warrant ranks of the Regular Army.  The concept of the program was to quickly meet the mobilization needs for officers through procurement of trained commissioned and warrant officers.  Current active duty members were ready assets during times of rapid expansion of the Active Army.  They could be mobilized to assume greater responsibilities quickly.  

21.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It stated the DD Form 214 was a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was a dual component Soldier, meaning he held one rank and status in the USAR and another while serving in the AUS on active duty.  In the applicant's case, he served in the USAR and the AUS as a warrant officer; however, he was not promoted at the same time or to the same rank in both components.

2.  He was promoted to CW2 in the AUS before he was promoted to CW2 in the USAR, and he was promoted to CW3 in the USAR even though he was never promoted to CW3 in the AUS.  

3.  When the applicant retired he was serving on active duty in the AUS as a CW2 and in the USAR as a CW3.  As such, he was placed on the Retired List in the highest grade held, that of CW3.  He would have also been paid as a CW3 and received a retired identification card with the grade of CW3.  However, since he did not attain this rank while serving on active duty as a dual component Soldier, his grade was reflected as CW2 on his DD Form 214.

4.  The DD Form 214 provides a record of a Soldier's active Army service at the time of release from active duty and does not reflect other service or status in the USAR.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 correctly reflects his rank grade as CW2 since that is the highest grade he attained in the AUS during his period of active duty service.  As such, there is insufficient evidence to justify 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 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)                                         AR20140015621





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015621



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1