BOARD DATE: 19 December 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007536 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 his records be corrected to show he was promoted to the rank of sergeant (SGT) E-5. 2. The applicant states he should have received two awards of the Army Achievement Medal (AAM) and he would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-5. However, he was transferred after rifle competition in the summer of 1984 and he believes his second award of the AAM was lost due to being reassigned. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents with his application. 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 24 October 1984 for a period of 4 years, training as an infantryman, and a cash enlistment bonus. He completed one-station unit training at Fort Benning, Georgia and he was transferred to Germany on 23 February 1985. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 October 1985. 3. On 17 June 1986, Permanent Orders 17-1 issued by Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment awarded the applicant the AAM for the period 19 – 23 May 1986. 4. On 17 October 1986, he was attached to the Army Recruiting Battalion in Jackson, Mississippi while pending a compassionate reassignment. His request for a compassionate reassignment was approved and he was reassigned to the recruiting station in Laurel, Mississippi on 31 January 1987. 5. On 11 May 1987, the applicant appeared before a promotion selection board for promotion to the pay grade of E-5. He was recommended and was placed on the Promotion Standing List with a promotion score of 670 points in military occupational specialty 11B. He received promotion point credit for one award of the AAM. His promotion points were recomputed in February 1988 and changed to 689 points. 6. On 23 October 1988, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) in the pay grade of E-4 due to the expiration of his term of service. He had served 4 years of active service and received the Army Service Ribbon, Good Conduct Medal, AAM, and his marksmanship awards. 7. A review of his official records failed to show any evidence of the applicant receiving a second award of the AAM or of his meeting the Department of the Army announced cut-off scores for promotion to the pay grade of E-5. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states there is no automatic entitlement to an award upon departure either from an assignment or from the service. 9. Army Regulation 600-8-22 states the AAM is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States, who while serving in a noncombat area on or after 1 August 1981, distinguished themselves by meritorious service or achievement. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that he should have been promoted to the pay grade of E-5 prior to his REFRAD has been noted and appears to lack merit. 2. The applicant contends that he should have received a second award of the AAM for his service in Germany which would have given him enough points for promotion to the pay grade of E-5. However, he has failed to support his contention through the evidence of record or sufficient evidence submitted with his application. 3. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show that he was in fact awarded a second award of the AAM and that he would have met the cut-off score for promotion to the pay grade of E-5, there appears to be no basis to grant his 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) AR20130007536 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130007536 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1