MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 17 JULY 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002082927

         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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson
Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member
Mr. John T. Meixell		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 1972 Department of Defense Form 214 be corrected to show that he was serving in the Regular Army at the time, vice “ACDUTRA” (active duty for training), in order to qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.

APPLICANT STATES: During a 2001 visit to the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital “to enroll for medical benefits” he was informed that he was ineligible for benefits because his separation document indicated that he had been on active duty for training purposes. He states he enlisted in the Arkansas Army National Guard on 17 November 1971 and was ordered to active duty at Fort Knox, Kentucky on 6 January 1972. He states that upon completion of basic training he was “ordered” to Fort Sill, Oklahoma where he was assigned to the “Permanent Party Section” of the Headquarters, United States Army Training Center. He states he was “immediately assigned to a job as a personnel records clerk with the Permanent Party Section” and that he was informed by the branch chief that he was being held on active duty because of a shortage of personnel in his specialty. He noted that he was told that he “was being changed from training status to RA [Regular Army] control” and that all of his active duty time, including his time in basic training would “count toward full VA benefits.” He states that the chief of the Military Personnel Branch specifically explained to him “the advantages of VA benefits and [his] eligibility.” He states he was even promoted “on Regular Army authority” and that his orders indicate that he was “permanent party and not trainee.”

In support of his request he submits a letter from a Veterans Service Officer who states that it was “unusual” for a soldier to be called to active duty for training purposes in excess of 6 months. He noted that the applicant was on active duty for training for 7 months and 26 days. He also submits a copy of a letter of appreciation from the chief, Military Personnel Branch, which he received in 1972 and a copy of orders promoting him to pay grade E-4 while on active duty on
31 August 1972.

He also recently submitted a copy of his Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) and his 1977 report of separation from the Army National Guard.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel offers nothing beyond that already provided by the applicant.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's complete military records were not available to the Board. Information contained herein was reconstructed entirely from documents provided by the applicant.

He enlisted in the Arkansas Army National on 17 November 1971. His Department of the Army Form 20 indicates that he was “ordered to aprox [approximately] 26 wks [weeks] ADT [active duty for training]” by special orders dated 29 December 1971. Those orders were not available to the Board.

The applicant entered active duty on 6 January 1972 and commenced basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky on 13 January 1972. He was promoted to pay grade E-2 on 17 March 1972 under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-200.

On 18 March 1972 the applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for “OJT” (on the job training) as a personnel specialist. His enlisted qualification record indicates that he was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, United States Army Training Center, Field Artillery.

On 1 June 1972 he was promoted to pay grade E-3 by unit orders and on
31 August 1972, the day he was released from active duty, he was promoted to pay grade E-4. His promotion orders to pay grade E-4, which he submitted in support of his request, note the applicant was “appointed by” the commanding officer of the Headquarters and Headquarters Battery under the authority of paragraph 7-13, Army Regulation 600-200. The individual’s “standard name line” on the orders does contain the notation (PP) but there is no indication what the annotations refers to. The applicant contends that the PP refers to “permanent party.”

Army Regulation 600-200, Chapter 7, in effect at the time, prescribed the policies and procedures for the promotion of enlisted soldiers. A 10 February 1972 change to Chapter 7 specifically noted that the chapter applied to “all enlisted personnel on active duty or active duty for training in a Federal status in excess of 90 days, irrespective of component.” Paragraph 7-19a of that regulation stated that enlisted soldiers of all components would be advanced to pay grade E-2 upon completion of 4 months service for pay purposes. The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-2 on 17 March 1972, 4 months after his enlistment in the Army National Guard. His enlisted qualification report indicated the authority for promotion was paragraph 7-19a.

Army Regulation 600-200 also noted that company, troop, battery, and separate detachment commanders could promote assigned personnel to pay grades E-3 and E-4. Promotion authorities could promote soldiers to pay grade E-3 who had 4 months time in grade as an E-2, but could also waive up to one-half of the time in grade requirement for outstanding individuals. The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-3 effective 1 June 1972, approximately 3 months after being promoted to pay grade E-2.

Orders promoting the applicant to pay grade E-4 cited paragraph 7-13 of Army Regulation 600-200. That paragraph governed temporary promotions of enlisted personnel against temporary promotion quota allocations. It provided for the promotion of soldiers to pay grade E-4 with at least 3 months time in grade as an E-3 and at least 5 months time in service. The applicant’s promotion to pay grade E-4 occurred on 31 August 1972, 3 months after his promotion to pay grade E-3 and approximately 9 months after his enlistment and 7 months after entry on active duty. Waivers were limited to truly outstanding soldiers.

The applicant received a letter of appreciation form the chief, Military Personnel Branch on 31 August 1972. The letter commended the applicant for his performance of duty “with the Permanent Party Section, Military Personnel Branch.”

On 31 August 1972, the applicant was released from active duty and “returned to State control as a member of the Army National Guard of AR.” The separation document, which the applicant authenticated, indicated that he had 7 months and 26 days of “ACDUTRA.” Item 17 (current active service other than by induction) notes the applicant was ordered to active duty for training, and item 4 (department component and branch of class) indicates that he was a member of the National Guard.

The applicant’s enlisted qualification record indicates that his active duty promotions to pay grade E-3 and E-4 were also confirmed by unit orders issued by his state National Guard organization (153^rd Infantry).

The applicant was honorably discharged from the Army National Guard on
16 November 1977, which coincided with the terminal date of his military service obligation.

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. The applicant’s contention that he was in a Regular Army status while on active duty in 1972 and not on active duty for the purpose of training is not supported by any of the evidence available to the Board. The applicant’s separation document, and his enlisted qualification record, both confirm that he was ordered to active duty for training. The fact that he may have remained on active duty longer than what may have been considered “normal” or that he underwent on the job training as a personnel specialist, is not evidence that his period of active duty was in actuality as a member of the Regular Army vice as a member of the Army National Guard on active duty for training purposes.

2. While the applicant states that he was told he “was being changed from training status to RA control” and that he was briefed about the advantages of Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and his eligibility, he offers no explanation why he then authenticated his separation document confirming his status as a Army National Guard soldier on active duty for the purpose of training. The applicant has provided no evidence which supports his contention that his component was changed from Army National Guard to Regular Army while he was on active duty, and that he subsequently reverted back to his Army National Guard status.

3. The applicant’s promotions while on active duty were consistent with the provisions authorized by Army Regulation 600-200. The fact that his National Guard unit confirmed the promotions after his separation further validates the appropriateness of those promotions. The promotions do not, however, indicate that the applicant was a member of the Regular Army at the time.

4. The “PP” reflected on his promotion order to pay grade E-4 was likely an indication that he was assigned to the “Permanent Party” section for duty and not confirmation of his Regular Army status, as the applicant contends.

5. While it is unfortunate that the applicant may not qualify for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits because his period of active duty was for training purpose, that disqualification does not serve as a basis to correct his separation document.

6. 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 that requirement.

7. 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

__JHL __ __RKS __ __JTM __ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082927
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030717
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.