IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 September 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100009071 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 that her records be corrected to show she was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant (1LT). 2. The applicant states that while on active duty as a member of the Army Nurse Corps, she underwent her review and evaluation for promotion and received an excellent grade, high marks, and was recommended for promotion to the level of her contemporaries, which was 1LT. She goes on to state before she was promoted she was ordered to appear before a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and she was discharged before she could be promoted. She also states she believes during the accelerated processing of her discharge her promotion was overlooked. 3. The applicant provides: * A DA Form 67-6 (Officer Efficiency Report) * Two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) 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 was born on 28 January 1947 and she enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) under the Army Student Nurse Program on 7 August 1968. 3. On 30 October 1969, she was honorably discharged in the rank of private first class to accept a commission. 4. On 31 October 1969 she was commissioned as a USAR second lieutenant (2LT) in the Army Nurse Corps with a concurrent call to active duty. She attended the Officer Basic Course at Fort Sam Houston, Texas and was transferred to Fitzsimons General Hospital (FGH) in Denver, Colorado on 29 December 1969 for duty as a medical surgical nurse in the Urology and Thoracic surgery ward. 5. On 15 March 1970, the applicant received a change of rater Officer Efficiency Report covering the period from 19 December 1969 to 15 March 1970. Her rater, a captain and head nurse recommended that she be promoted along with her contemporaries. Her indorser, a major and surgical nursing supervisor. also recommended that she be promoted along with her contemporaries. 6. On 9 April 1970, a PEB was convened at FGH and determined the applicant was unfit to perform the duties of her office due to physical disabilities that existed prior to service (EPTS). The PEB recommended that she be separated from the service without entitlement to disability benefits from the service. 7. On 20 May 1970, she was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 due to physical disability without severance pay. She had served 6 months and 20 days of active commissioned service as a 2LT. 8. Army Regulation 624-100, in effect at the time, prescribes the policy and procedures for promotion of officers on the active duty list. It provided, in pertinent part, that a commander in the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher may promote an officer under their command serving in the rank of 2LT to the rank of 1LT on the day after he or she completes 12 months of active duty service as a 2LT, provided a higher commander in the chain of command has not withheld promotion review authority. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that she should have been promoted to the rank of 1LT prior to her discharge has been noted and found to lack merit. 2. The officer efficiency report the applicant received was a change of rater report and not a promotion report as she contends. Her rating chain recommended that she be promoted along with her contemporaries which indicate she was to be promoted when she became eligible. 3. The time in grade requirement for promotion to the rank of 1LT at that time was 12 months of active service in the rank of 2LT and the applicant had only served 6 months and 20 days as of the date of her discharge. Accordingly, she was not yet eligible for promotion to the rank of 1LT. 4. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant her request for promotion to the rank of 1LT. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ____X___ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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. The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to the United States. The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of her service in arms. _______ _ __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) AR20100009071 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)