RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        7 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050010368


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas H. Reichler            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his Enlisted Evaluation Report
(EER) for the period ending June 1983 be expunged from his records; that
his records be corrected to show he was promoted to Master Sergeant, E-8;
and that his retirement date be adjusted accordingly.

2.  The applicant states that the rater and indorser on the contested EER
were not in his rating scheme.  The false and adverse EER resulted in his
being denied the opportunity to be promoted to E-8 and in his early
retirement.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 31 May 1984.  The application submitted in this case is dated 8
July 2005.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  After having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular
Army on    8 April 1966.  He was promoted to Sergeant First Class, E-7 in
military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist) on 1 July 1978.

4.  The contested EER is a 3-rated month relief-for-cause report for the
period April through June 1983.  He was assigned to Headquarters and
Headquarters Company, 4th Battalion, 64th Armor, Germany, and performed
duties as a platoon sergeant for the Medical Platoon of the battalion.  His
rater was the company commander; his indorser was the battalion executive
officer; his reviewer was the battalion commander.

5.  The applicant's rater commented that the applicant personally displayed
superior medical knowledge and was enthusiastic about his duties in the
medical area.  However, he repeatedly failed to accomplish assigned
missions in support of the battalion's training.  The indorser did not meet
the minimum time requirement to indorse the report.
6.  The applicant signed the contested EER on 12 June 1983.

7.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant appealed the
contested EER.

8.  The applicant applied for retirement on 26 March 1984 and retired on 1
June 1984 (approved as an exception to policy after he had been
permissively attached to the U. S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, AR
in February 1984 based on the medical condition of his parent).

9.  Army Regulation 623-205 (Enlisted Evaluation Reporting System), in
effect at the time, established the policies and procedures governing the
Enlisted Evaluation Reporting System.  In pertinent part, it stated an EER
accepted for inclusion in a Soldier’s official record was presumed to be
administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated
rating officials, and to have represented the considered opinion and
objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  It
stated the burden of proof in an EER appeal rested with the applicant.
Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an EER under the
regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and
convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action
to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant appealed the
contested EER while he was on active duty or within a reasonable period of
time.  He provides no evidence to show the rating officials of the
contested EER were not in his rating scheme.

2.  Promotion boards do not record the reason a Soldier is selected or
nonselected for promotion.  To presume that the contested EER was the sole
reason the applicant was not selected for promotion to E-8 is purely
speculative.

3.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant submitted his request
for retirement when he did as a solution to a medical problem of his
parent.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 31 May 1984; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on         30 May 1987.  The applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jea___  __thr___  __swf___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  __James E. Anderholm_
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050010368                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060307                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |111.0200.0008                           |
|2.                      |111.0200.0009                           |
|3.                      |131.00                                  |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]