APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his home address contained in his military records be corrected from an address in Rhode Island to an address in Massachusetts.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the address currently listed is that of a gas station, but the street number of the gas station was transposed on his contract.  

In support of his application he submits an affidavit from an individual who states that the applicant lived at the residence of a couple who are unrelated to the applicant, their residence being in Massachusetts, when he enlisted and after he returned from Vietnam.  The address given by the applicant was the gas station he was working at when he was inducted.  He submits two other statements attesting to his living in Massachusetts when he enlisted, and plot maps showing that a gas station exists on the street that is listed as his address in his military records.

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

He was inducted on 5 July 1967.  At that time he completed a DD Form 398, Statement of Personal History, and a DD Form 1584, National Agency Check Request, both of which he filled out by hand himself, listing his address as being in Rhode Island.  All of the other enlistment documents contained in the applicant’s records show his residence as being in Rhode Island.

He served in Vietnam, was awarded the military occupational specialty of infantryman, and was promoted to pay grade 
E-5.  He completed his induction and was honorably released from active duty on 28 February 1969 due to his having insufficient time to be reassigned after his return from Vietnam.  The DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Separation or Transfer, shows his address as being in Massachusetts.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1.  The applicant stated in writing at the time of his induction that he lived at an address in Rhode Island.

2.  While it appears that the applicant may have stayed at a residence in Massachusetts prior to and following his induction, there is no proof that he lived at that address when he was inducted.  That address was not that of his parents or of individuals who stood in loco parentis.

3.  The applicant’s circumstances prior to his induction are not the business of the Army, other than the information required to process his induction and security clearance.  For whatever reason, the applicant listed his residence as being in Rhode Island, not Massachusetts, on several forms when he was inducted.  No error was made by the Army.

4.  While it appears that the applicant reconciled his differences with the individuals who had once housed him in Massachusetts prior to his separation, that does not change the fact that he himself listed his address as being in Rhode Island when he was inducted.  That address could very well have been his place of employment.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director