RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 January 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070012490 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. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. James E. Vick Chairperson Mr. Thomas M. Ray Member Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann 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 correction of his military records to show that he was promoted to specialist four, pay grade E-4. 2. The applicant states he was advised that he was promoted 2 weeks prior to his discharge. 3. The applicant provides copies of his Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214) and discharge orders. 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 18 January 1971, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States in the rank of private, pay grade E-1, for 2 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63C2O (Track Vehicle Mechanic). 3. Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) of the applicant's Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) shows that he was advanced to the rank of private, pay grade E-2 on 13 April 1971. It does not show that he was promoted to the rank of private first class. It does indicate that he was promoted to specialist four, pay grade E-4, with a date of rank 29 July 1971. 4. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, provided that promotion criteria to pay grade E-4 required 6 months time-in-grade as a private first class, pay grade E-3 (waivable to 3 months), and 1 year time-in-service (waivable to 7 months). 5. On 21 August 1971, the applicant submitted a request for hardship discharge. He indicated at the time that he was a private first class, pay grade E-3. 6. On 22 October 1971, the applicant's request for hardship discharge was approved. Accordingly, he was discharged with an honorable characterization of service, in pay grade E-3, on 11 November 1971. Item 6 (Date of Rank) shows 29 July 1971. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence of record clearly shows that that the applicant entered active duty as a private, pay grade E-1 and was advanced to pay grade E-2 after 2 months and 26 days of active service, on 13 April 1971. 2. According to the promotion criteria at the time, the earliest time that he would have attained eligibility for promotion to pay grade E4 was after 7 months time-in-service, which occurred on 18 August 1971. Therefore, the entry in Item 33 of the applicant's DA Form 20 showing a promotion to pay grade E-4 on 29 July 1971, is erroneous. It appears that this entry should have read that he was promoted to pay grade E-3 on 29 July 1971. His use of this rank in his request for hardship discharge supports this conclusion. 3. Furthermore, with a promotion to pay grade E-3 on 29 July 1971, the earliest he would have attained eligibility for promotion to pay grade E-4 was 29 October 1971. 4. There is no evidence of record showing that the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-4 at any time between 29 October 1971 and his discharge date of 11 November 1971. 5. In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___ JEV _ __TMR__ __JCR 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. __ James E. Vick _____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20080122 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 129 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.