IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 January 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007431 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 restoration of her rank to sergeant (SGT)/E-5. 2. The applicant states she was told her reduction in rank was temporary and she would get her SGT/E-5 back in 60 days, but she did not. 3. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 10 June 1981. She completed her training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 31N (communications systems/circuit controller) and later MOS 25Q (graphic documentation technician). She was promoted to the rank of SGT/E-5 effective 15 September 1987. 3. The applicant's records show nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against her on 18 June 1992 for disorderly conduct and damaging property. Her NJP included reduction to specialist (SPC)/E-4. 4. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) shows she was reduced to SPC/E-4 with a date of rank of 14 July 1992. 5. On 28 August 1992, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against her. A letter from the Deputy Commanding General, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, dated 8 September 1992, states: * the bar to reenlistment was approved * the applicant was to be counseled by her unit commander and informed she was in a nonpromotable status while the bar was in effect * the bar must be reviewed 3 months after the date of approval 6. On 25 September 1992, she was honorably discharged in the rank of SPC/E-4 under the Qualitative Retention Program under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 16-8. 7. Item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) of her DD Form 214 shows the entry "SPC." Item 4b (Pay Grade) shows the entry "E4." 8. Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows she was: * promoted to SGT with a date of rank of 15 September 1987 * reduced to SP4 with a date of rank of 14 July 1992 9. There is no evidence of record and she did not provide any evidence that shows she was promoted to SGT/E-5 after her reduction on 14 July 1992. 10. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for preparation of the DD Form 214. It states for items 4a and 4b, enter the active duty grade of rank and pay grade at the time of separation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Although she contends she was told her reduction in rank was temporary and she would get her SGT/E-5 rank back in 60 days, there is no evidence of record and she did not provide any evidence to support these contentions. 2. Her military records show she was reduced from SGT/E-5 to SPC/E-4 effective 14 July 1992. There is no evidence of record that shows she was again promoted to SGT/E-5 after 14 July 1992 or prior to her discharge on 25 September 1992. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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 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) AR20130007431 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130007431 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1