IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 March 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003081 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 five Certificates of Achievement (COA's) be removed from his official military personnel file (OMPF). 2. The applicant states: * he received five COA's from his old unit, the 101st Chemical Company, from 2006 to 2007, which is now disbanded * his company had several problems with awards and certificates being incomplete and not fully finished; without signatures they are considered invalid * when he is looked at for promotion to SFC/E-7 he wants no discrepancies in his record * he has been trying to remove these awards through several units, including the U. S. Army Human Resources Command, for years and has been unsuccessful 3. The applicant provides copies of the five unsigned COA's. 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 (RA) on 25 August 2005 in pay grade E-2 for a period of 3 years and 24 weeks. He has continued his RA service, and he is currently assigned in military occupational specialty 74D (Chemical Operations Specialist). He was promoted to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 effective 1 December 2012. 3. His OMPF shows he received the following unsigned COA's: * On 2 March 2007, for a 3rd Platoon Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) * On 5 March 2007, for performance on a color guard * On 2 April 2007, for performance on APFT with a high score * On 4 May 2007, for performance on a 20 kilometer foot march * On 2 July 2007, for a perfect score during the unit rifle qualification course 4. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states commanders may recognize periods of faithful service, acts, or achievements which do not meet the standards required for decorations by issuing U.S. military personnel a DA Form 2442 (Certificate of Achievement) or a unit COA of local design, and that: a. COA's will be issued under such regulations as the local commander may prescribe. b. Copies of COA's or a memorandum for record stating that a COA has been awarded and citing the service recognized will be distributed to the OMPF. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) prescribes the policies governing the OMPF, the military personnel records jacket, the career management individual file, and Army personnel qualification records. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. There is no evidence that the applicant's COA's are erroneous. Army Regulation 600-8-22 does not state that the COA's must be signed in ink or digitally signed in order for them to be valid. The fact the COA's were entered into his OMPF in the first place would indicate that he was approved for those awards. 2. The applicant was promoted to SGT/E-5 with the COA's in his record. He states that since the awards were unsigned, they are invalid entries and they will be entered as discrepancies affecting future promotions. There is no reason to believe that these documents might be a liability when he is considered for promotion in the future. Therefore, there is insufficient reason to remove the COA’s from his OMPF now. Each COA acknowledged his individual outstanding performance meeting or exceeding Army standards. 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) AR20090001028 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003081 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1