BOARD DATE: 15 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005192 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 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his rank and pay grade as colonel (O-6). 2. The applicant states his DD Form 214 shows that his last pay grade was lieutenant colonel (LTC/O-5). He states that he does not know why this error was made. 3. The applicant provides a copy of Orders 167-34, dated 29 August 1989, separating him from the Army National Guard (ARNG) effective 1 September 1989. 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 record shows he accepted an appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer on 9 June 1969, in the rank of first lieutenant (O-2). He was ordered to active duty effective 24 June 1969. 3. He was released from active duty (REFRAD) on 29 September 1980 in the rank of LTC and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). 4. A review of the applicant's official military records fails to reveal a DD Form 214 contained therein releasing him from active duty on 29 September 1980 and transferring him to the USAR. 5. He accepted an appointment in the Kentucky ARNG on 16 July 1981, in pay grade of O-5. He was promoted to colonel/O-6 on 4 June 1985. 6. The applicant was released from the Kentucky ARNG on 1 September 1989 and he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement). His NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows his rank and pay grade as colonel (O-6). 7. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. The regulation stated that the DD Form 214 was a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of REFRAD, retirement, or discharge. 8. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contention has been noted. His supporting evidence has been considered. 2. A review of the applicant's official military records fails to reveal a DD Form 214 contained therein releasing him from active duty on 29 September 1980 and transferring him to the USAR. The applicant did not submit a copy of the DD Form 214 that he contends shows his incorrect rank and pay grade. 3. He was REFRAD in 1980 in the rank and pay grade of LTC/O-5. Though the Board does not have this DD Form 214 available for review, based on the available evidence it appears the rank and pay grade on his DD Form 214 is correct. 4. The NGB Form 22 he received on 1 September 1989 shows his proper rank and pay grade. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in this case was correct. 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) AR20150005192 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005192 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1