IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110005357 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 correction of his records to show he received a battlefield promotion to the rank/grade of specialist five/E-5. 2. The applicant states he served in Vietnam and was told he had been put in for a field promotion. 3. The applicant provides a self-authored statement and extracts of his military personnel records. 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 July 1967. He reenlisted in the grade/rank of specialist four/E-4 on 2 February 1970. 3. The DD Form 214 issued at the time of the applicant's release from active duty shows he held the rank of specialist four/pay grade E-4 with a date of rank of 1 January 1969. 4. The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record), Item 31 (Appointments and Reductions) shows the following promotions: * private/E-1 with a date of rank (DOR) of 31 July 1967 * private (PV2)/E-2 with a DOR of 30 November 1967 * private first class (PFC)/E-3 with a DOR of 5 February 1968 5. Records show the applicant was temporarily promoted to specialist four on 1 January 1969 and permanently promoted to specialist four on 15 January 1969. 6. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the following offenses on 28 October 1969, for failing to obey a lawful order and on 22 August 1972, for absenting himself from his place of duty and failing to obey a lawful order. 7. Item 31 (Foreign Service) of the applicant's DA 20 shows the following overseas locations from: * 5 January 1968 to 1 January 1969 - U.S. Army Pacific (Vietnam) * 22 January 1972 to 23 February 1973 - U.S. Army Pacific (Korea) 8. The applicant's DD Form 214, issued on 1 February 1974, verifies in Items 5a and b (Grade, Rate or Rank, and Pay Grade) he was a specialist four/E-4. The applicant authenticated this document with his signature. 9. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), then in effect, prescribed the policies and procedures for the promotion and reduction of enlisted Soldiers. Recommendation for promotion to pay grade E-5 would be prepared on a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), signed by the recommending official, and then submitted through channels to the headquarters of the promotion authority. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's request for a battle field promotion to the rank/grade of specialist five/E-5 was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. 2. The records are void of any promotion orders or a recommendation for promotion, and the applicant has failed to provide any evidence which shows he was approved for promotion to the rank/grade of specialist five/E-5. 3. By regulation, the active duty rank held at the time of separation will be entered on the separation document. Notwithstanding the documents provided by the applicant, which shows his rank as specialist four, the Board presumes that the rank of specialist four listed on the applicant’s DD Form 214 was the rank he held on the date of separation. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the Board finds there is insufficient evidence to support the requested relief in this case. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 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) AR20110005357 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110005357 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1