| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his 1969 separation document be corrected to show that he was not ordered to active duty for training (ACDUTRA), but rather that he was “called to Regular active duty to go to Vietnam.” In support of his request he submits copies of his orders assigning him to Fort Bliss, Texas. The applicant states that he is attempting to secure Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and the ACDUTRA entry on his separation document is preventing him from securing those benefits.
3. Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve for a period of 6 years on 7 May 1964. In conjunction with his 7 May 1964 enlistment, he was ordered to active duty for training on 30 June 1964 to undergo basic and advanced individual training. He completed his training and was released from active duty on 8 December 1964.
4. In February 1965 the applicant was transferred from his Troop Program Unit (TPU) in Chico, California to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) under the provisions of Army Regulation 140-10.
5. Army Regulation 140-10 provided, in pertinent part, that enlisted soldiers could be transferred to an appropriate control group of the Individual Ready Reserve for a variety of reasons, including personal reasons, confirmed unresolvable employment conflicts, and dependency or hardship. The actual basis for the applicant’s transfer was not in records available to the Board.
6. The applicant’s records contain an acknowledgement document, authenticated by the applicant on 28 August 1967 which states that he was acknowledging “receipt of your letter which outlines the policies and options which are applicable to me as a Reserve Components member subject to involuntary order to active duty under the provisions of Public Law 89-687.
7. Public Law 89-687, enacted in October 1966, permitted activation of entire reserve units for periods of 24 months, and authorized the President to order to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months, any member of the Ready Reserve who was not assigned to, or participating satisfactorily in, a unit of the Ready Reserves.
8. On 15 May 1968 the Office of The Adjutant General, United States Army Administration Center in St. Louis, Missouri, published orders which “ordered [the applicant] to active duty” for a period of 24 months “less active duty previously performed, unless sooner relieved by proper authority.” The authority for the applicant’s activation was Title 10, United States Code, Section 673a and Public Law 89-687.
9. Title 10, United States Code, Section 673a, in effect at the time, authorized “in time of national emergency declared by the President…or when otherwise authorized by law, and authority designated by the Secretary concerned may, without the consent of the person concerned, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty (other than for training) for not more than 24 consecutive months.”
10. During the applicant’s period of active duty he was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas where he performed duties as a personnel specialist. Throughout his period of active duty he retained his “ER” (Enlisted Reserve) serial number and his component was listed as USAR (United States Army Reserve).
11. On 31 January 1969 the applicant was released from active duty after his request for separation based on dependency was approved. His 1969 separation document notes, in item 17a (source of entry) reflects “Ordered to ACDUTRA.”
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Although the applicant was in fact a member of the United States Army Reserve at the time he was ordered to active duty in 1968, he was not ordered to active duty for training purposes as his 1969 separation document indicates.
2. While the evidence does not indicate that the applicant was integrated into the Regular Army when he was order to active duty, the Board does note that he was ordered to active duty under the provisions of PL 89-687 and Title 10, United States Code, Section 673a, which specifically indicated that individuals ordered to active duty under that provision of law were not being ordered to active duty for training.
3. The Board is satisfied that the evidence of record confirms that the applicant was not ordered to active duty for training and concludes that it would be appropriate, and in the interest of justice and equity, to correct item 17a of his 1969 separation document to show “Ordered to Active Duty under PL 89-689 and Sec 673a, Title 10, U.S.C.” vice “Ordered to ACDUTRA.”
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing in item 17a of the applicant’s 1969 separation document that he was “Ordered to Active Duty under PL 89-689 and Sec 673a, Title 10, U.S.C.”
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__GJW__ ___KAH _ ___RLD _ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
______Gail J. Wire_______
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002082782 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030731 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509464C070209
His activation orders, issued by the XX United States Army Corps, specifically state that he was being ordered to active duty for the purpose of training (ACDUTRA). Again the orders specifically state the applicant was being ordered to active duty for the purpose of training. It is clear, based on the various documents which ordered the applicant to active duty, that his final period of active service, 28 September 1968 through 27 April 1969, was not for the purpose of training but rather...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012997
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 3 February 1970 to show he served in the Regular Army and not the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) and that he was not on active duty for training. There is no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that he ever enlisted in the Regular Army. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085225C070212
The applicant requests that the entry “ORDERED TO ACDUTRA” (ordered to active duty for training) be deleted from item 17 of his separation document. He contends that he was a member of the Army National Guard (ARNG) and then went on active duty for 1 year, 7 months and 10 days, with service in Germany. It is evident that the applicant was not ordered to active duty for training.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065224C070421
The Report of Separation and Record of Service (NGB Form 22) that he was furnished at the time of his discharge from the AZARNG shows that he was discharged for the purpose of being ordered to active duty under the provisions of Public Law 89-687 and Department of the Army Circular 135-10. The evidence of record shows that he was ordered to active duty by direction of the President and his DD Form 214 should be amended to reflect the appropriate information. RECOMMENDATION : That all of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017822
The applicant requests, in effect, that item 17a (Current Active Service Other than by Induction) of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) that was issued on 24 September 1969 be corrected to show that he was ordered to active duty (AD) instead of ordered to active duty for training (ACDUTRA). The applicant essentially states that his DD Form 214 that was issued on 24 September 1969, which will simply be referred to as his second DD Form 214...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014903
The applicant requests, in effect, that item 17a (Current Active Service other than by Induction, Source of Entry) of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 23 September 1970 be corrected to show he was not ordered to active duty for training (ACDUTRA). Headquarters, Sixth United States Army, Presidio of California Reserve Letter Orders Number A-01-0009, dated 8 January 1969, ordered him to active duty, effective 22 March...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011761
The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 214, with an effective date of 20 October 1969. The applicant contends, in effect, that his DD Form 214, with an effective date of 20 October 1969, should be corrected to show he was ordered to active duty rather than ordered to active duty for training. However, the evidence of record shows that this service is not accurately recorded on the applicant's DD Form 214, with an effective date of 20 October 1969.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001804
The applicant's military service records are not available to the Board for review. The applicant signed the document verifying the accuracy of the information recorded on the DD Form 214. c. Based on the above and the available evidence of record, it is concluded that the DD Form 214 correctly shows the applicant's active duty service during this period (emphasis added) and rank/grade at the time he was released from active duty. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014829
The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 5 February 1970 to show he was not on active duty just for training. The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was involuntarily ordered to active duty as an enlisted Reservist and served that active duty in Europe. However, his subsequent DD Form 214 incorrectly reports this service as ACDUTRA.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083877C070212
The applicant requests that his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 2 March 1970, be corrected by deleting the phrase "ORDERED TO ACDUTRA 1 YR 6 MOS" in Block 17a, and by showing that he was order to active duty. The applicant states that he was not ordered to active duty for training (ACDUTRA) as his DD Form 214 indicates; he was ordered to active duty. The applicant’s military records were not available.