IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018039 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018039 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150018039 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 her military records by showing she was promoted to the rank/pay grade of sergeant/E-5. 2. The applicant states she was promoted by a major general prior to her discharge and wants her military records to reflect such. She contends that the error occurred on 15 December 1985. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Letter, from the Department of Defense, Office of Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force (USAF), written on 1 August 2014 and signed by a Major General, USAF. 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. On 20 July 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in the rank of private/E-2. She was trained as a food service specialist and awarded the corresponding military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B. She was subsequently assigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia, as a cook. 3. On 1 February 1984, the applicant was advanced to the rank of private first class/E-3. 4. A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 18 September 1984, indicates the applicant was recommended for advancement to the rank of specialist four/E-4 with a waiver. 5. Records show on 6 May 1985, the applicant exceeded the weight for height tables. She weighed 160 pounds. Her maximum allowable weight was 152 pounds. She was placed on the weight control program with a goal of losing 4 pounds per month. She acknowledged her responsibilities to achieve the maximum allowable weight. On 4 June 1985, the applicant’s weight was 150 pounds. She was removed from the weight control program. 6. A DA Form 268 (Report of Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions), dated 9 December 1986, shows the applicant had again entered the weight control program on 25 November 1986. 7. A DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record – Part I) prepared on 8 June 1988 shows the applicant held the rank of specialist four with a date of rank of 1 October 1984. This document also shows that she had acquired 596 points for promotion in January 1986, which were adjusted the following month to 597 promotion points. 8. On 1 December 1988, the applicant was discharged from active duty due to pregnancy. She held the rank of specialist four, pay grade E-4 at the time. She completed a period of 5 years, 4 months, and 12 days of creditable active service. 9. The letter of support, written on 1 August 2014, provided by the applicant purports to have been written by a Major General, USAF, wherein he certifies the applicant received a field promotion to sergeant effective 1 December 1985. He offers his most sincere apologies for a mix-up so many years ago and states that this letter entitles the applicant to all rights and privileges as a sergeant. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System) as in effective at the time, provided: a. promotion eligibility criteria for E-5 as: * 8 months time in grade (TIG) as an E-4 (4 months TIG could be waived) * 36 months TIG for the primary zone and 18 months TIG for the secondary zone * A maximum of two waivers were permitted * Must be in a promotable status (No waiver authorized) * Must be recommended for promotion by unit commander * Must appear before a promotion selection board for evaluation * Must be fully qualified in the MOS in which recommended for promotion consideration * Attain a Skill Qualification Test score of 60 or higher (No waiver required); 59 or lower required a waiver * Must be physically qualified to perform duties of the MOS and grade to which recommended * Must have completed no less than 8 years of education or have a General Education Development equivalent * Must have the appropriate security clearance or a favorable security investigation as required by the promotion MOS b. A recommendation for promotion to pay grade E-5 required the preparation of a DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet). The promotion authority was required to approve or disapprove the recommendation. The servicing military personnel office processed approved recommendations and performed promotion point re-computations when requested or was otherwise determined to be necessary. c. A Department of the Army centralized promotion point cutoff score report announced the number of points in each MOS required for promotion eligibility each month. d. Company, troop, battery, and separate detachment commanders were authorized to appoint acting noncommissioned officers (NCOs) as acting corporals (E-4) and sergeants (E-5). They were to serve in vacant positions in their units at their present or higher grade. An acting NCO had all the authority of a regularly appointed NCO of the same grade. Acting NCOs were not entitled to pay and allowances for such higher grades. Service was not credited as TIG for promotion purposes or for date of rank (DOR) purposes. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends that her military records should be corrected by showing she was promoted to the rank of sergeant/E-5 on 15 December 1985. 2. The available records show the applicant enlisted in the RA in 1983 and was advanced through the ranks to specialist four/E-4 with a DOR of 1 October 1984. 3. The available records also indicate the applicant was recommended for promotion to the pay grade of E-5 and attained promotion standing list status in January 1986. Her promotion points were corrected the following month. However, there is no evidence that the cut-off promotion score for her MOS dropped below her point score, or if it did, that she was in a promotable status at the time. 4. The letter of support provided by the applicant, as written by a Major General, USAF, is noted. A review of the promotion criteria in the governing regulation failed to show any provisions for permanent field promotion authority in the ROK in 1985. Furthermore, the letter does not clearly and fully explain what mix-up occurred that may have prevented the applicant from being promoted. 5. While the available evidence does not show the applicant was ever appointed as an acting NCO, this is what may have been done at the time. Such actions were temporary in nature and did not result in permanent changes to rank, pay grade, or TIG benefits. 6. A careful review of the applicant’s records failed to disclose an error or injustice. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150018039 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150018039 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2