RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR200600013795 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Mr. Gerard Schwartz Acting Director Ms. Antoinette Farley Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Linda D. Simmons Chairperson Mr. Joe R. Schroeder Member Mr. Chester A. Damian Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 5 September 1966, to shows his foreign service time as 3 years, 11 months, and 25 days. 2. The applicant states that he served in Germany during the period from July 1959 through September 1962 and in Korea from April 1965 to April 1966. 3. The applicant states that the error on his DD Form 214 could have been an honest mistake, an improper entry of military information, or an oversight on his part. 4. The applicant does not provide any additional documentary evidence in support of this application. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 5 September 1966, the date of his separation from active duty. The application submitted in this case is dated 20 September 2006. 2. 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 allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. 3. The applicant's military service record is incomplete; however, the available record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 September 1960 and was honorably separated from active duty on 5 September 1966. The applicant's record also shows he served in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) during the period 5 July 1979 through 13 May 1987. The applicant's records show he served in the New York Army National Guard (NYARNG) during the period 1 May 1987 through 29 January 1992 and transferred to the Inactive ARNGUS on 30 January 1992. 4. The applicant's record shows he was separated on 1 March 1993. 5. Item 22 (Place of Entry into Current Active Service City and States) of the DD Form 214 shows he entered the service in Schweinfurt, Germany. The applicant's record did not show the dates he served in Germany. The applicant's available records do not show that he served in Korea. 6. Item 24c (Foreign and/or Sea Service) of the DD Form 214 shows the applicant served 2 years, 11 months, and 25 days overseas in Germany. 7. Item 5 (Oversea Service) of DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows no entry prior to 1 January 1975. 8. Army Regulation 635-5 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. In pertinent part, it directs that the applicant's statement of service of foreign and/or sea service will be entered in item 24c of the DD Form 214. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that his record should be corrected to show his Foreign Service as 3 years, 11 months, and 25 days. 2. In accordance with Army Regulation 635-5, the applicant's Foreign Service will be entered in item 24c of his DD Form 214. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence which shows that his period of Foreign Service should be changed. The entry 2 years, 11 months, and 25 days as shown on his DD Form 214 is correctly listed. Therefore, there is no basis to grant the relief requested. 3. The applicant requests that his record show he served overseas in Korea from April 1965 to April 1966. There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence which shows that he served overseas in Korea. Therefore, there is no basis to grant the relief requested. 4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 5 September 1966; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 4 September 1969. The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations; however, based on the available evidence it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _JRS____ _LDS___ _CAD___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _Linda D. Simmons____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060013795 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED TYPE OF DISCHARGE HD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1966/09/05 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200 DISCHARGE REASON ETS BOARD DECISION Denial REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.