IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100029979 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction to Item 25 (Separation Authority) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 2. He states that Item 25 should show Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), paragraph 16-7 (Early Separation due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints) and not paragraph 16-8 (Separation of Soldiers of medical holding detachments/ companies). He was not in a holding unit, he was in a regular unit. On 28 September 2010, he discovered that his DD Form 214 was wrong when the Department of Veterans Affairs sent him a letter. 3. He provides: * DD Form 214 * An extract of paragraphs 16-7 and 16-8 of Army Regulation 635-200, dated 6 June 2005 COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: Counsel provides no requests, statement, or additional evidence in support of the applicant's request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. 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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), in pay grade E-1, on 14 June 1990, for 3 years. He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 16S (Manpads Crewmember). He served in Saudi Arabia from 13 October 1990 through 3 April 1991. 3. He reenlisted in the RA on 5 March 1993 for 3 years. He served in Germany from 25 August 1993 through 24 August 1996. 4. Orders Number 248-09 were issued by the U.S. Army Europe Transition Center, Wiesbaden, Germany, on 5 September 1996, reassigned him to the U.S. Army Transition Point with a reporting date of 13 September 1996. The orders show he was reassigned for separation processing under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200. 5. He was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) in pay grade E-1 on 14 September 1996, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, for Reduction in Force. He was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). He was credited with completing 6 years, 3 months, and 1 day of net active service and no time lost. 6. He was issued a DD Form 214 showing the following entries: * Item 25 - " Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 16-8" * Item 26 (Separation Code) - "LCC" * Item 27 (Reentry (RE) Code) - "RE-3" * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) - "Reduction in Force" 7. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-7 of the version then in effect, dated 17 October 1990, specified a Soldier could be separated due to disqualification for duty in MOS. Paragraph 16-8 of the same regulation specified a Soldier could be separated prior to their expiration of term of service (ETS) due to reduction in force, strengths limitations, or budgetary constraints. 8. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-7 of the current version, dated 6 June 2005, states Soldiers may be separated prior to ETS due to reduction in force, strengths limitations, or budgetary constraints. Paragraph 16-8 provides for the separation of Soldiers in Warrior Transition Units. 9. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes), then in effect, showed the SPD of "LCC" as shown on the applicant's DD Form 214 was appropriate when the narrative reason for involuntary REFRAD was "Reduction in Force" and the authority for discharge was Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's contentions have been acknowledged; however, he separated on 14 September 1996. He was issued a DD Form 214 showing in Item 25 he was REFRAD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, for Reduction in Force which was the correct authority based upon the version of Army Regulation 635-200 in effect at the time. 2. The separation authority and separation code for separation listed on his DD Form 214 are commensurate with and correspond to the reason for his discharge. 3. He has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the separation authority (Item 25) shown on his DD Form 214 is incorrect. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting his request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X_____ ____X____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 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. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100029979 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100029979 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1