RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 MARCH 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040003330


      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. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas Howard                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Osborn                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James Gunlicks                |     |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.  In effect, the applicant requests that the time that he spent in the
delayed entry program (DEP) be entered on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states that the time served on active duty would qualify
him for a loan from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or the Federal
Housing Administration (FHA).

3.  The applicant provides no evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice) which occurred on 12 October 1983.  The application submitted in
this case is dated    23 June 2004.

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 enlisted in the Army National Guard on 23 September 1978.
 He was on active duty for training (ADT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina
from      25 January 1979 to 19 May 1979 when he was released from ADT and
returned to his National Guard unit in Phoenix, Arizona.  He was discharged
from the Army National Guard on 25 July 1979.

4.  On 26 July 1979 the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve DEP for 6
years.  He was discharged from the Army Reserve DEP upon his enlistment in
the Regular Army for 4 years on 21 August 1979.

5.  On 12 October 1983 the applicant was discharged from the Army under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the
service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His discharge was under other
than honorable conditions.  Item 12e of that form shows that he had 7
months and 6 days of total prior inactive service.  Item 12l, Reserve
Obligation Termination Date, on his    DD Form 214 show 0 years, 0 months,
and 0 days, in effect, that he had no Reserve obligation, thus no Reserve
obligation termination date.

6.  The applicant had 4 months and 3 days of inactive service in the Army
National Guard prior to his entry on ADT; 2 months and 7 days after his
release from ADT and prior to his entry in the DEP, and 26 days in the DEP.
 His           DD Form 214 shows 7 months and 6 days of prior inactive
service.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5, then in effect, provides for the preparation and
issue of the DD Form 214.  It states that the DD Form 214 will be prepared
for individuals upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military
service or control of the Army.  It provides for prior inactive service to
be reflected in item 12e on the DD Form 214.  There are no provisions in
that regulation for a separate entry showing time spent in the DEP.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5, currently in effect, does allow for a separate
      DEP entry in the remarks section on the DD Form 214, but only to
ensure that the DEP time is credited toward the fulfillment of the
statutory military service obligation date.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s 12 October 1983 DD Form 214 is correct.  It shows that
he had a total of 7 months and 6 days of total prior inactive service.  His
DEP time of 26 days is included in that service.  The applicant’s service
in the DEP is not active duty service.  He entered on active duty on 21
August 1979.

2.  There were no provisions for a separate entry on the DD Form 214
showing time spent on the DEP when he was discharged in 1983, nor is there
now a requirement to enter that information for Soldiers who do not have a
military service obligation when they are separated from the Army.  Because
of the nature of the applicant’s discharge, he did not have a military
service obligation; consequently, even by today’s standards a separate
entry showing DEP time on the DD Form 214 would not be required.

3.  Consequently, the applicant’s request to correct his DD Form 214 is
denied.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 12 October 1983; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on          11 October 1986.  However, the applicant did
not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a
compelling explanation or evidence to show that 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

___TH___  __RO___  ___JG  __  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.




                                  _____Thomas Howard______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040003330                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050322                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]