MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            16 January 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002077681

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. N. Troup		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
       records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
       advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) be corrected in items 17 (Physical Status), 28 (Specialized Training), and item 38 (Record of Assignments).

APPLICANT STATES:  That item 17 of his DA Form 20 shows he was 5 feet,   10 inches tall and weighed 183 pounds.  He was 6 foot, 1 inch at the time and weighed only 132 pounds as indicated on his enlistment contract.  

Item 28 of his DA Form 20 fails to show he completed POR (Preparation of Replacements for Overseas Movement) training.  

Item 38 of his DA Form 20 contains four errors.  The entry for 1 December 1968 shows he performed duties as a 13A10, ammunition handler, with Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 2d Battalion, 319th Artillery (2/319th Artillery).  He was never an ammunition handler but worked in his primary military occupational specialty (MOS) of 76Y30, supplyman.  The line above, also dated 1 December 1968, which shows he was a supplyman, is correct.  

The entry for 8 February 1969 shows he performed duties as a 13A10, cannoneer, with Battery C, 2/319th Artillery.  He was never a cannoneer with that unit as shown by his promotion orders to Specialist Four, E-4.  Those orders show his MOS as 76Y30, supply specialist, not cannoneer.

The entry for 15 May 1969 shows he performed duties as a 76Y30, unit supply specialist, with Battery B, 2/319th Artillery.  That time he performed duties as a 13A10, cannoneer.  After being released from confinement he was sent directly to the battery in the A-Shau Valley during the Battle of Hamburger Hill.  

The next error is a missing entry.  He had requested assignment to duties as a radio/telephone operator with the 2d Battalion, 506th Infantry (2/506th Infantry).  On 14 June 1969, he was sent to that unit and stayed with them until he departed Vietnam.  He was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars.  He would not have gotten these for working supply in the rear.  (It appears from a 5 August 2002 letter he provides as supporting evidence that he requests this correction so he can qualify to be a part of the 2/506th Airborne Infantry Regiment Association.)

As supporting evidence, he provides a Certificate of Training showing he completed 1-week POR training; his E-4 promotion orders showing he was promoted in MOS 76Y30; his GED (General Educational Development) certificate signed by the commander of Company B, 2/506th Infantry; his GED Military Test Report where the educational personnel noted his unit as Company B, 2/506th Infantry; a copy of an SF 539 (Abbreviated Clinical Record) dated     13 September 1969 where the doctor noted his unit as Company B, 2/506th Infantry; a letter dated 7 July 2002 from him to the National Personnel Records Center wherein he requested copies of morning reports to verify his assignment to Company B, 2/506th Infantry; a DA Form 1577 (Authorization for Issuance of Awards) which shows he was authorized the Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars; his 22 July 1968 request for transfer to Vietnam; his          15 August 1973 orders discharging him from the U. S. Army Reserve; a copy     of a 16 January 1991 letter from him to the Army Reserve Personnel Center; a   5 August 2002 letter from the then commander of Company B, 2/506th Infantry stating he remembered the applicant being attached to the unit beginning in June 1969 until at least until September 1969 although such attachment would not be reflected on any morning report; his DA Form 20; and his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge).

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 September 1967.  His DD Form                  4 (Enlistment Record - Armed Forces of the United States) shows his height as  6 foot, 1 inch and his weight as 132 pounds.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded MOS 76Y (Unit and Organization Supply Specialist).

The applicant arrived in Vietnam on or about 1 December 1968.  He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 21 February 1969 in MOS 76Y30.  He departed Vietnam on 14 December 1969.

The applicant's DA Form 20 shows the entries in question as he states.  He signed the DA Form 20 on 14 December 1969.

The applicant was released from active duty on 6 October 1970.  He was discharged from the U. S. Army Reserve on 15 August 1973.

At the time, Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 9, prescribed instructions for preparing and maintaining the DA Form 20.  In pertinent part, it stated that the chapter was applicable to all enlisted personnel on active duty and all Army Reserve enlisted personnel assigned to U. S. Army Reserve troop program units.

Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.    The Board acknowledges that the applicant provides a statement from the then commander of Company B, 2/506th Infantry asserting he was attached to that unit; however, there is no evidence of record to show he was attached to the 2/506th Infantry.  Contrary to the commander's comment that no morning report entry would have been made, a morning report entry should have been made even if attachment orders had not been published.  The morning report was the means used to keep track of the whereabouts of military personnel, a procedure vitally important, especially in a combat zone.  The other documents (GED certificate, etc.,) purporting to show he was attached to the 2/506th Infantry are insufficient evidence of record to verify that fact.

3.  If the applicant's primary concern is to qualify to be part of the 2/506th Airborne Infantry Regiment Association, the Association might accept his commander's 5 August 2002 letter, or an affidavit version of it, as verifying he was part of that unit.

4.  Although there is a discrepancy between the height and weight entries on the DA Form 20 and on the applicant's enlistment contract, it cannot be determined which entry is incorrect.  It cannot be determined 30 years after the fact what his duty MOS was for any particular Vietnam assignment, especially since he signed his DA Form 20 on 14 December 1969 after he departed Vietnam certifying the entries on the form were correct.  Although he provides a Certificate of Training to show he completed POR training, to add it to the DA Form 20 at this point in time would serve no useful purpose.

5.  It is noted that the applicant's E-4 promotion orders reflected the MOS in which he was promoted, not the MOS in which he was working at the time.

6.  The DA Form 20 was prepared and maintained for Active Army and U. S. Army Reserve enlisted personnel.  As the applicant no longer has a military status, and he signed the DA Form 20 on 14 December 1969 with these "errors" on the form, the Board is reluctant to recommend that those records be changed. The DD Form 214 is the document used to record the military history of a separated individual.

7.  As a matter of information, the Vietnam Service Medal is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces who served in Vietnam after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973 regardless of MOS or duties performed.  Bronze service stars are worn on the Vietnam Service Medal for each credited campaign participation based upon dates served in Vietnam.

8.  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

__RVO__  __AAO  _  __MJNT__  DENY APPLICATION 

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002077681	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/01/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.