IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 July 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080007242 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 he be paid his reenlistment bonus, with interest. 2. The applicant states that his third reenlistment bonus was never paid. 3. The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 6 June 1963. 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 21 April 1948. He was honorably discharged on 6 June 1951. He immediately reenlisted on 7 June 1951. He was honorably discharged on 6 June 1957. He immediately reenlisted on 7 June 1957. 3. On 6 June 1963, the applicant was honorably discharged. Item 32 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 June 1963 stated he was entitled to reenlistment bonus number 3 in pay grade E-7 under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 37-104. 4. The applicant immediately reenlisted on 7 June 1963. A Second Army Area (2AA) Form 628 (Enlistment Statement), dated 7 June 1963, Part I, stated in part, "That all promises made to me are contained in items 11, 13, or 37 of the DD Form 4, my enlistment record.” Item 11 (Grade) of the applicant’s DD Form 4 stated his grade was “MSgt E7(P)”; item 13 (Initial Assignment) stated, “REENL FOR PRESENT DUTY ASGMT”; and item 37 (Remarks) stated, “None.” 5. Part II of the 2AA Form 628, dated 7 June 1963, stated in part, “To further emphasize the importance of understanding the promises made to me I certify that I have listed below in my handwriting all promises both oral and written that have been made to me in connection with my enlistment in the Regular Army.” The applicant then wrote, “MSG (P) E-7 Present Duty Assignment.” 6. The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 30 April 1968 upon completing sufficient service for retirement. 7. The doctrine of laches is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, sixth edition, as the neglect to assert a right or claim which, taken together with lapse of time and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contended that he was never paid the reenlistment bonus which his DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 June 1963 indicated he was eligible for. 2. It is acknowledged that the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 June 1963 does indeed indicate he was eligible for a reenlistment bonus. However, his enlistment contract for his reenlistment of 7 June 1963 does not indicate that he was promised a reenlistment bonus. 3. Even if the regulatory authority cited on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 June 1963 were available and could confirm that he was eligible for a reenlistment bonus, 45 years have lapsed since the applicant contended he was not paid the bonus. Finance records are not available that would confirm whether or not he was paid that bonus. 4. An arbitrary ruling in the applicant’s favor, without knowing what his finance records would show or what the regulatory cite would confirm, would cause prejudice to the Government. Had the applicant applied to the ABCMR in a timely manner an equitable decision could possibly have been made in his case. However, since it is now 45 years after the alleged error, the doctrine of laches is invoked in his case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __xx____ ____xx__ ____xx__ 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. _ ______xxxx______________ 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) AR20080007242 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080007242 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1