MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


                  IN THE CASE OF:
        


                  BOARD DATE: 28 October 2003
                  DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003088173

         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
Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson
Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member
Ms. Marla J. 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: In effect, that he be credited with his time with the 623d "IC" Company, that his basic training time be included on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and that his rank on his DD Form 214 be corrected to show he separated as a Private First Class (PFC), E-3.

APPLICANT STATES: That he processed in to the 623d "IC" Company at Fort Totten, NY in Flushing, NY but was told because he lived in Manhattan he could not serve with that unit. He feels that if he could not fulfill his military service obligation because of Reserve components discrimination, then they owe him for that time. His Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings show that he was processed as a PFC but he was discharged as a Private, E-2 (PV2). Prior to his discharge, he had no knowledge that he had been reduced to PV2. Furthermore, they never included his basic training time on his DD Form 214.

As supporting evidence, the applicant provides his DD Form 214; three self-authored letters to the National Personnel Records Center (two undated and one dated 22 January 2003); his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record); his enlistment contract for 30 March 1983; a 1st endorsement from Headquarters, U. S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA dated 14 March 1986; a 4th endorsement from Headquarters. U. S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA dated 27 March 1986; the front page of his Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings; the front page of his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings); Commander, U. S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) message 301130Z October 1987, subject: Enlisted Disability Separation; and separation orders dated 29 October 1987.

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

He enlisted in the Army National Guard on 14 May 1976. He was on active duty from 14 July through 9 October 1976, apparently for basic training, for 88 days. He was ordered to active duty for an unknown reason effective 2 February 1978 for an active duty commitment of 21 months and 4 days. He was absent without leave from 2 through 22 February 1978. He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-4 on 1 October 1979.

On 30 October 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.

On 30 March 1983, the applicant reenlisted for 3 years making his expiration term of service (ETS) 29 March 1986.

Orders 228-23, Headquarters, 197th Infantry Brigade, Fort Benning, GA dated 11 December 1985 apparently discharged the applicant upon his ETS effective 29 March 1986. A 1st endorsement from Headquarters, U. S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA dated 14 March 1986 amended those orders to note he accepted assignment to the 623d "IC" (endorsement partially illegible) Company, Fort Totten, Flushing, NY. He was required to report to his assigned unit within 60 days after his ETS.

On 24 March 1986, the applicant requested retention on active duty beyond his scheduled release date for medical reasons. His request was approved on 27 March 1986. The approval authority noted that the applicant would be discharged upon completion of foot surgery proceedings.

On 3 August 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment was a reduction to PFC, E-3.

On 3 September 1987, a Medical Evaluation Board found the applicant to be unfit by reason of a foot condition and referred him to a PEB.

On 14 September 1987, an informal PEB found the applicant to be fit for duty. He nonconcurred in the PEB's findings.

On 2 October 1987, the applicant's battalion commander barred him from reenlistment. The reason for the bar was cited as his continued indebtedness (three letters of indebtedness and ten dishonored checks).

On 8 October 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment was a reduction to PV2, E-2. He elected not to appeal the punishment.

On 15 October 1987, a PEB found the applicant to be unfit by reason of a foot condition and recommended his separation with severance pay with a 20 percent disability rating. The DA Form 199 noted the applicant's grade as "PFC." On 15 October 1987, the applicant agreed with the recommendation.

Orders 200-32, Headquarters, 197th Infantry Brigade dated 29 October 1987 reassigned the applicant to the U. S. Army Transition Point with a reporting date of 6 November 1987. The orders stated that after processing he was discharged from the Regular Army. The orders contain no instructions that he was to be assigned to any Reserve component unit. The separation orders note his rank in the standard name line as "PV2." Apparently this entry was corrected by correction tape after the orders were typed.

By message date/time group 301130Z October 1987, the USAPDA approved the PEB's recommendation and directed the applicant's immediate discharge. The message referred to the applicant as "PFC" and he was authorized severance pay in grade PFC, E-3.
On 6 November 1987, the applicant was discharged by reason of physical disability with severance pay. Items 4a and 4b of his DD Form 214 show his rank and pay grade as PV2, E-2. Item 12h shows his date of grade as 8 October 1987. Item 12d shows he had 2 months and 26 days of prior active service. Item 12e shows he had 1 year, 5 months, and 22 days of prior inactive service.

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.

Army Regulation 635-5, the version in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty on 9 October 1976, stated that a DD Form 214 would be issued to all personnel at the time of retirement, discharge, or release from the Active Army including each member of the Reserve components released after completion of more than 89 days (emphasis added) of active duty for training.

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. Even if the applicant had actually served with the 623d "IC" Company, that service would not be authorized for entry on his DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 is only meant to provide a record of Active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. Since any service with the 623d "IC" Company would have been after the applicant was separated from active duty, it would not have been reflected on his DD Form 214.

3. In addition, it is acknowledged that, upon the applicant's original ETS of 29 March 1986, he had accepted assignment to the 623d "IC" Company, Fort Totten, Flushing, NY and was required to report to that unit within 60 days after his ETS. However, days before his scheduled ETS he was approved for retention, at his request, on active duty for medical treatment. The approval noted he would be discharged upon completion of foot surgery proceedings. He remained on active duty for medical treatment/medical evaluation board processing for over 18 months beyond his normal ETS. It is presumed his assignment to the 623d "IC" Company was revoked and orders issued to that effect. Even if through an administrative error his assignment had not been formally revoked, a reasonable person would not have assumed that his assignment was still valid.

4. The evidence of record shows the applicant served 88 days of active duty, presumably to attend basic training, from 14 July through 9 October 1976. In accordance with regulatory guidance then in effect, a DD Form 214 was only prepared for Reserve component soldiers who were being released from active duty for training after a period of more than 89 days. The applicant did not meet the criteria for issuance of a DD Form 214 for the period of active duty he attended basic training. However, that period of active duty is correctly accounted for in item 12d of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 6 November 1987 (as computed on a 30-day basis).

5. The evidence of record shows the applicant was reduced from PFC to PV2 by Article 15 action on 8 October 1987. The evidence shows that he was fully aware of the reduction and even declined to appeal the punishment of reduction to PV2. His formal PEB, which indicated his rank as PFC, was held on 15 October 1987. The USAPDA message which approved the PEB recommendation and directed he be paid severance pay as a PFC was dated 30 October 1987. It is presumed that his reduction action was too recent to have caught up with the PEB and USAPDA paperwork. Whether or not the applicant was actually paid severance pay as a PFC or as a PV2, he was a PV2 on 6 November 1987, the date of his separation. His DD Form 214 correctly shows his rank and grade as PV2, E-2.

6. 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

__rjw___ __lds___ __mjt__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088173
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20031028
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun
ISSUES 1.	100.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.