APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show; that the applicant was in the Delayed Entry Program and that she entered into the US Army on 5 May 1975 instead of 23 May 1975.

PURPOSE:  To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant was born on 11 March 1951.  She completed 
12 years of formal education.  On 23 May 1975, she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  Her Armed Forces Qualification Test score was 59 (Category III).  She completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B10 (Food Service Specialist).  The highest grade achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 23 May 1976, she was honorably discharged from service, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, (Dependency/Hardship).  Her DD Form 214, indicated that she had completed 1 year, 6 months and 18 days of creditable active service.  She was authorized the Good Conduct Medal and the National Defense Service Medal.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of genuine dependency or hardship. An application for such separation will be approved when a service member can substantiate that his/her situation or immediate family's situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary and that discharge will improve the situation.

There is no evidence in the applicant’s record in support of her allegations.

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.  Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

DISCUSSION:  The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 23 May 1976, the date the applicant was discharged. The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 23 May 1979.

The application is dated 20 September 1993, and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION:  The subject application was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

BOARD VOTE:

                      EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

                      GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                      CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION




		Karl F. Schneider
		Acting Director