BOARD DATE: 20 October 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110004097 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 pay grade E-5 before he retired. 2. The applicant states he believes he should have been promoted before he was separated. 3. The applicant provides a letter, dated 22 February 2011. 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 7 May 1965. With 3 years and 10 months of prior active Regular Army service and 2 years, 8 months, and 29 days of prior Reserve Component service, the applicant enlisted in the Maine Army National Guard (MEARNG), on 14 April 1990, in pay grade E-3. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 5 August 1991. 3. The applicant was discharged from the MEARNG, on 4 June 2002, in pay grade E-4. He was assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) on 5 June 2002. 4. The applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve, on 1 June 2006, in pay grade E-4. 5. The applicant submits a letter in which he again states he believes he should have been promoted to pay grade E-5 prior to discharge. 6. During the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command, Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-1 who recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The DCS, G-1 states the Army Reserve has no record of the applicant ever being considered and recommended for promotion. However, had he been on the promotion list their records indicate he would have been removed from the recommended list prior to retirement as a result of his failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test (AFPT) starting in October 2004. The DCS, G-1 states that no documentation can be located to establish the APFT failures were the result of a medical condition. 7. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant on 1 September 2011. To date, there has been no response from the applicant. 8. Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) provides the objectives of the Army’s enlisted promotions system, which include filling authorized enlisted spaces with the best qualified Soldiers. Further, this system provides for career progression and rank that are in line with potential and for recognition of the best qualified Soldier, which will attract and retain the highest caliber Soldier for a career in the Army. Additionally, the system precludes promoting the Soldier who is not productive or not the best qualified, thus providing an equitable system for all Soldiers. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contentions have been noted. The letter he submits has been considered. 2. There is no evidence that the applicant was ever considered and recommended for promotion to pay grade E-5. 3. As stated in the advisory opinion had he been on a promotion list he would have been removed from the recommended list prior to retirement due to failure of the APFT starting in October 2004. No evidence was located to establish the APFT failures were a result of a medical condition. 4. The fact that he believes he should have been promoted prior to separation is not a sufficient justification for amending his records to show he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5. 5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant request should be denied. 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) AR20110004097 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110004097 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1