IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 April 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130012927 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 was promoted to the rank of staff sergeant (SSG)/pay grade E-6. 2. The applicant states he served in the rank of sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5 while assigned to Company B, 3rd Battalion, 1st Infantry, 11th Infantry Brigade in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). He was wounded and medically evacuated to a hospital in Japan. He was then reassigned to the Medical Holding Company (MHC), U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Polk, LA. He expected to receive his promotion to SSG (E-6) while in the hospital, but it never occurred. 3. The applicant provides copies of a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), an endorsement to reassignment orders, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), and DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214). 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 14 March 1966. He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). 3. Headquarters, 11th Infantry Brigade, Special Orders Number 254, dated 18 November 1967, promoted the applicant to SGT (E-5). 4. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in: a. item 2 (Grade): SGT E-5 b. item 3 (Date of Rank): 18 November 1967 c. item 31 (Foreign Service): Vietnam from 6 December 1967 through 23 October 1968; d. item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) the highest rank/grade he attained was SGT (E-5) with a date of rank (DOR) of 18 November 1967; and e. item 38 (Record of Assignments) he was assigned to: * Company B, 3rd Battalion, 1st Infantry, 11th Infantry Brigade (RVN), from 6 December 1967 through 19 October 1968 * Medical Holding Detachment (MHD), 7th Field Hospital (Japan), from 20 through 22 October 1969 * MHC, U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Polk, LA, from 28 October 1968 through 6 March 1969 5. Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort Polk, LA, Special Orders Number 055, paragraph 063, dated 5 March 1969, as amended by paragraph 065, dated 5 March 1969, show the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD), in the rank of SGT (E-5), effective 7 March 1969. 6. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant was honorably REFRAD on 7 March 1969 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his Reserve obligation. a. He had completed 2 years, 11 months, and 24 days of net active service this period. b. It also shows in: * item 5a (Grade, Rate or Rank): SGT (Permanent) * item 5b (Pay Grade): E5 * item 6 (DOR): 18 November 1967 7. A DD Form 215, issued on 8 September 2003, corrected the applicant's DD Form 214 to show his service in the RVN and his authorized awards. 8. Office of The Adjutant General, USAR Components Personnel and Administration Center, St. Louis, MO, Letter Orders Number 02-1067138, dated 23 February 1972, honorably discharged the applicant from the USAR Control Group (Standby), in the rank of SGT, effective 13 March 1972. 9. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal any evidence that he was promoted to grade E-6. 10. In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents: a. a copy of a DA Form 2496, dated 1 November 1968, that shows the Executive Officer, Company B, 3rd Battalion, 1st Infantry, 11th Infantry Brigade, recommended the applicant for promotion to SSG (E-6). The document does not contain a signature. b. a 1st endorsement to reassignment orders (medical evacuee), dated 9 November 1968, that shows the assistant adjutant forwarded records (presumably those of the applicant) based on assignment to the MHD, 7th Field Hospital. It shows the individual was recommended and eligible for promotion and that the recommendation was signed by the commander. 11. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), in effect at the time, prescribes policies and procedures governing enlisted Soldiers. a. Chapter 7 (Promotions), section III (Promotion to Pay Grade E-5 and E-6) shows, in pertinent part, if the promotion authority approves the report of promotion board proceedings, the name of the Soldier will be integrated into the recommended list. b. The Soldier will be eligible for promotion on the first day of the third month following date of this action. c. Promotion point cut-off scores for each MOS, announced monthly by Headquarters, Department of the Army, will be used to promote Soldiers to pay grades E-5 and E-6. d. A Soldier whose promotion points equal or exceed the announced MOS promotion point cut-off score will be promoted, if otherwise eligible. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show he was promoted to SSG (E-6). 2. Records show the applicant was promoted to SGT (E-5) on 18 November 1967. 3. The evidence of record shows: a. he was assigned to the MHC, U.S. Army Hospital, Fort Polk, LA, effective 28 October 1968; and b. he was recommended (emphasis added) for promotion to grade E-6 on or about 1 November 1968. 4. The recommendation for promotion from the applicant's former executive officer after he departed the unit could be a basis for the commander of his new unit to also recommend him for promotion and appearance before the promotion board. However, there is no evidence this occurred. Specifically, there is no evidence the applicant appeared before a promotion board, that he was recommended for promotion by the board, and placed on the E-6 promotion list. 5. There is no evidence the applicant was promoted to grade E-6. Specifically, there are no orders announcing any such promotion. a. The applicant was honorably REFRAD on 7 March 1969 in the rank of SGT (E-5) and transferred to the USAR in that rank. b. He was honorably discharged from the USAR on 13 March 1972 in the rank of SGT (E-5). c. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, there is no basis for correcting the applicant's records to show he was promoted to grade E-6. 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) AR20130012927 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130012927 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1