ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 October 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190001924 APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he was discharged in the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 versus sergeant (SGT)/E-5 with a date of rank of 3 April 1991 as well as his military occupational specialty to show "63E3O" instead of "63E2O." APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 214, for the period ending 16 April 1991, member copy #1 * AAC-C10 (Recommended List for Promotion of Enlisted Personnel), dated prepared 3 April 1991 * DA Forms 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet), dated 29 May 1990, May 1990, May 1988, December 1986 with auxiliary documents * Orders 10-4, dated 12 January 1990 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year period provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 October 1981 and held military occupational specialty 63E (M-1 Abrams Tank System Mechanic). Subsequently, he was promoted to the rank/grade of SGT with a date of rank of 6 June 1985. 3. The applicant was honorably discharged from the Army on 14 April 1991 by reason of expiration term of service (ETS). His DD Form 214 shows he completed 9 years, 6 months, and 5 days of net active service. His DD Form 214 shows in: a. Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade), the entries "SGT" and "E-5." b. Item 11 (Primary Specialty), the entry "63E2O - M1 Abrams Tank System Mechanic - 9 years and 2 months." 4. A review of the applicant's record is void of promotion orders to SSG. 5. The applicant provides: a. A report titled "AAC-C10" with a prepared date of 3 April 1991 that shows the applicant's name as being recommended for promotion to the pay grade of E-6, a period of 11 days before his ETS. b. A DA Form 3355, dated 29 May 1990 that shows his promotion points and that he was recommended for promotion to the pay grade of E-6 by the company commander on 29 May 1990; however, there was no indication of an approval or disapproval by the promotion authority (the battalion commander). c. Three additional DA Forms 3355, dated May 1989, May 1988, and December 1986, respectively, showing his promotion points to determine eligibility to E-6 on those specific dates. d. Orders 10-4, issued by 177th Personnel Service Company, APO, NY on 12 January 1990 showing he was proceeding on a permanent change of station move assigning him to the 177th Armor Brigade, Fort Irwin, CA with a reporting date of 17 April 1990. 6. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), effective 20 July 1984, in pertinent part, prescribes promotions and reductions in grade and paragraph 7-33 states that the service remaining obligation is 12 months for promotion to grade E-6 and waivers will not be granted. In conjunction with promotion to grade E-6, a Soldier's skill level (the fourth character in the military occupational specialty code) changes to "3." BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the requested relief is not warranted. 2. The available records contain no evidence, such as orders, showing he was promoted to SSG. The Board agreed that having met a cutoff score and having been recommended for promotion to SSG would not be a basis for correcting the record to show he held the higher grade. The Board noted that he would not have been promoted to SSG unless he had committed to serve at least an additional 12 months. The Board found no evidence of error or injustice in the rank and grade recorded on his DD Form 214. The Board further agreed that he would not have held a higher skill level designation in his MOS unless he had been promoted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XX :XXX 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. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), effective 20 July 1984, regulation prescribes policies and procedures for career management of Army enlisted personnel, classification and reclassification of enlisted Soldiers in military occupational specialty (MOS), utilization of enlisted personnel, testing active Army enlisted Soldiers under the Individual Training Evaluation (ITE), administering special duty assignment proficiency pay, and promotions and reductions in grade. Paragraph 7-33 of Chapter 7 (Promotions) prescribes that the service remaining obligation is 12 months for promotion to grade E-6 and waivers will not be granted. In conjunction with promotion to grade E-6, a Soldier's skill level (the fourth character in the military occupational specialty code) changes to "3." // NOTHING FOLLOWS // ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190001924 3 1