RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         6 April 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050011146


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Brenda K. Koch                |     |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 retired rank title be
changed from Sergeant Major (SGM) to Command Sergeant Major (CSM).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served as a CSM in the
Republic of Vietnam (RVN) in the 26th Infantry when he was awarded the
Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB), Bronze Star Medal (BSM) with Valor ("V")
Device, Purple Heart (PH), and Air Medal (AM).  He claims his service as a
CSM was honorable and this change would only be recognition of his time in
combat.

3.  The applicant provides several documents in support of his application.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 30 June 1974.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
25 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.  The applicant's record shows that on 30 June 1974, he was released from
active duty (REFRAD) for the purpose of retirement after completing a total
of
31 years, 6 months and 2 days of active military service.

4.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) indicates,
in Item
33 (Appointments and Reductions), that he was promoted to the rank of SGM
and pay grade of E-9 on 10 March 1967,  There is no entry in this item that
indicates that he was ever laterally appointed to the rank of CSM.

5.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows
that he served as the CSM of the 1st Battalion of the 26th Infantry in the
RVN from
19 June 1968 through 13 January 1969 and as the CSM of Support Command,
Saigon from 28 February through 28 May 1969.

6.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a
nomination for the CSM program, dated 11 January 1968.  This document shows
he was nominated for a CSM requirement at Fort Meade, Maryland.  The MPRJ
contains no indication that he was ultimately selected for CSM by a
properly constituted DA selection board based on this nomination.

7.  United States Army Europe and Seventh Army Letter Order Number
E-04-059, dated 12 April 1974, authorized the applicant's REFRAD for the
purpose of retirement on 30 June 1974, and his placement on the Retired
List on 1 July 1974.  The order also indicated his authorized retired grade
was SGM.

8.  A Data for Retired Pay (DA Form 3713) on file, dated 1 July 1974, which
was prepared during the applicant's retirement processing shows his active
duty grade, retired grade, and the highest grade he ever held were all SGM.


9.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the
date of his REFRAD for the purpose of retirement contains the entry SGM in
Item 5a (Grade, Rate, or Rank), which indicates he held that rank title on
the
date of his separation.  In addition, Item 23a (Specialty Number and Title)
confirms his MOS was 11F50 (Infantry Operations and Intelligence).  The
applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32
(Signature of Person Being Separated).

10.  The applicant provides a certificate, dated 27 March 1969, which was
signed by a unit commander in the rank of captain.  This document indicates
that the applicant was appointed a CSM, effective 10 March 1967.  He also
provides awards orders for the BSM with "V" Device, PH, and AM that were
issued between 30 November 1968 and 27 February 1969, that indicate his
rank was CSM in the standard name lines.

11.  The CSM program was authorized in 1967 and the first selections into
the program were selected by a board that adjourned on 29 December 1967.
The selection results for the first CSM program selections were announced
in Department of the Army (DA) Circular 611-31, dated 8 January 1968.  Of
the
214 nominees for the program, 196 were selected.  Subsequent selection
boards were scheduled for March and July 1968.  Since the inception of the
program, selection into the CSM program was accomplished through a DA
selection board.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his retired rank title should be
changed from SGM to CSM and the supporting documents he submitted were
carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support
this claim.

2.  The applicant's record contains a CSM nomination from Fort Meade, dated
11 January 1968, and his DA Form 20 confirms he served as a CSM in the RVN
from 19 June 1968 and 27 February 1969.  However, his record is void of any
indication that he was ever selected for entrance into the CSM program at
that time.  The certificate he provided that shows he was appointed a CSM
by a captain on 10 March 1967, and the award orders he submitted that show
his rank as CSM in the standard name lines do not support a conclusion that
he was selected for entrance into the CSM program by a properly constituted
DA selection board, which was necessary to support a lateral appointment
from SGM to CSM at the time.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was processed for
retirement and placed on the Retired List with the rank title of SGM and
not CSM.  This fact is further supported by the rank and pay grade entries
contained in all documents and orders published on him during his
retirement processing.  This includes a Data for Retired Pay Form, which
should have been the source document used by finance to establish his
retired pay record, and his DD Form 214, which he authenticated with his
signature on the date of his separation.  In effect, his signature was his
verification that the information contained on the separation document, to
include his rank title, was correct at the time the DD Form 214 was
prepared and issued.

4.  The applicant is advised that the veracity of his claim that he served
as a CSM is not in question.  However, performing duties in a CSM position
alone did not support a lateral appointment to that rank.  Lacking any
evidence of record that shows he was selected for entrance into the CSM
program by a properly constituted DA selection board and/or that he was
appointed a CSM by proper authority prior to his REFRAD, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to support a change to his retired rank
title at this late date.  Therefore, his request must be denied in the
interest of all those who served in the same timeframe and who faced
similar circumstances.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 30 June 1974, the date of his REFRAD,
the date of his REFRAD for retirement.  Therefore, the time for him to file
a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 29 June 1977.
 He failed to 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

__PMS __  __CD___  ___BKK _  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.




                                  _____Paul M. Smith______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050011146                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/04/06                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1974/06/30                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Retirement                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  319  |131.0900                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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