IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 May 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120019426 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 record to show he was promoted from staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 to warrant officer one (WO1) in the Army National Guard (ARNG). 2. The applicant states he completed WO school in April 1964, but he was never promoted to the rank of WO. He would now like his WO rank. 3. The applicant provides: * Diploma, WO Indoctrination Training * DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record - Armed Forces of the United States) * Certificate for ARNG service * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * NGB Form 64 (Application for xxxx [illegible] Trainer) * DA Form 759 (Individual Flight Record - Army Aviator) * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History) 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's records are not available for review with this case. All records are provided by the applicant and appear to be sufficient to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 3. The available records show he was born on xx September 1935. Some of the records he provides are illegible; however, it appears he had prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (USMCR) from 27 June 1953 to 26 June 1961. 4. He enlisted in the Minnesota ARNG (MNARNG) on 18 April 1963. He completed the WO Rotary Wing Course from 17 March to 6 June 1964. He was honorably separated from the MNARNG in the rank/grade of specialist five (SP5)/E-5 on 7 June 1964. 5. He provides an illegible NGB Form 64 and some medical documents. He also provides: a. A Certificate, dated 7 June 1964, showing he enlisted in the MNARNG on 18 April 1963 and he was assigned to Company B, 47th Aviation, from 18 April 1963 to 7 June 1964. He was advanced to the rank of specialist four/E-4 on 18 April 1963 and he was promoted to SP5/E-5 on 5 June 1963. b. A Diploma, dated 17 April 1964, showing he successfully completed WO Indoctrination Training, Preflight- Class 64-7, at the U.S. Army Primary Helicopter School, Fort Wolters, Mineral Wells, TX. c. An NGB Form 22 that shows he served in the ARNG from 18 April 1963 to 7 June 1964. d. An Individual Flight Record for April and May 1964 that shows, as a student pilot, he held the rank/grade of SP5/E-5 and performed 17.3 total flying time. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The available evidence shows the applicant previously served in the USMCR from 27 June 1953 to 26 June 1961. He enlisted in the MNARNG on 18 April 1963 and he was honorably discharged on 7 June 1964. During his ARNG period of enlistment, he completed the WO Rotary Wing Course from 17 March to 6 June 1964. 2. All the records he provides show his rank/grade as SP5/E-5. The evidence that he provides does not show that he submitted an application for an appointment as a WO in the ARNG or that a State Federal Recognition Board recommended him for appointment or that he was extended Federal recognition by the NGB. 3. Enlisted Soldiers "enlist" in a component of the Armed Forces whereas officers (warrant or commissioned) are "appointed." Once serving in an enlisted or an officer status, each category of Soldiers is governed by a separate promotion system. Enlisted Soldiers are not promoted to a WO grade. 4. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support this 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) AR20120019426 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120019426 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1