RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 NOVEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004105423


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Hise                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Hubert Fry                    |     |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.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his 2 November 1998
reenlistment document be corrected to show that he executed his
reenlistment action on
2 June 1998, vice 2 November 1998, in order to avoid a 5-month break in
service.

2.  The applicant refers to a 20 March 2003 letter from officials at the
“U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Command” which informed him that there had
been several errors on his December 1997 and 1 May 1998 service extension
documents.  That letter indicated that based on the two extension
documents, even if they had contained correct information, would have meant
that his 2 November 1998 reenlistment action occurred 5 months after his
last extension expired which, based on their calculation was 1 June 1998.
They also noted that the applicant’s extension documents, which showed that
he was extending his “8 year” reenlistment was wrong because prior service
individuals were limited to a maximum of a 6 years reenlistment contract.
Officials from the Reserve Personnel Command provided the applicant with an
application to submit to this Board to request correction of his November
1998 reenlistment document.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his November 1998 reenlistment
document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  While information in the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File
is limited, it does indicate that he has been affiliated with the United
States Armed Forces in one capacity or another since 1972.

2.  In July 1987 he was honorably discharged from the Illinois Army
National Guard and on 1 November 1987 became a member of the United States
Army Reserve and was assigned to an engineer battalion in Kankakee,
Illinois.  On
2 June 1991 he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control
Group (Reinforcement).

3.  On 19 February 1997 he rejoined his original engineer battalion and
executed his first of three service extension documents.  That extension
document, which clearly contains several errors (the date of the enlistment
contract being extended, the term of that enlistment contract, etc.), does
indicate that the applicant’s scheduled expiration of service (ETS) was 1
June 1997 and that he was extending his service contract an additional 6
months thereby establishing a new ETS date of 1 December 1997.

4.  On 1 December 1997 the applicant executed his second extension
document. That extension document again contained numerous errors but did
indicate he was extending his current ETS date of 1 December 1997 an
additional 6 months.  That extension would have established his new ETS
date as 1 June 1998, although the extension document incorrectly indicated
1 May 1998.

5.  On 1 May 1998 the applicant executed his third and final extension
document. This document, which again contains several erroneous entries,
does appear to reflect the correct information regarding the original
enlistment contract which was being extended for the third time.  This
extension document indicates that the applicant was extending his original
2 June 1991, 6-year reenlistment contract, for an additional 6 months and
that there had been two previous extensions to the 1991 reenlistment.
However, the applicant’s new ETS date, based on the May 1998 extension, was
erroneously recorded as 1 November 1998.  The error was merely a reflection
of erroneous ETS information contained on the applicant’s 1 December 1997
extension document.

6.  On 2 November 1998 the applicant executed a reenlistment contract for a
period of 6 years.  It is this reenlistment contract that he was advised to
have corrected.

7.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was provided by the
United States Army Human Resources Command-St. Louis.  The opinion
acknowledged that the applicant’s three extension documents contained
multiple errors and that because the extension had expired and the
applicant had reenlisted for a period of 6 years on 2 November 1998, the
extension should be allowed to stand.  They made no recommendation
regarding the correct of the applicant’s 2 November 1998 reenlistment
document.  The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and
concurred..

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no error or injustice contained on the applicant’s 2 November
1998 reenlistment document and as such no corrective action is required.

2.  Although the applicant’s previous reenlistment documents were not
available to the Board, it does appear, based on the date that he was
transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement)
and his subsequent extension actions, that he reenlisted for a period of 6
years on 2 June 1991.  He extended that June 1991 contract on three
separate occasions for a total of 18 additional months, not the two
occasions noted by officials from the United States Army Reserve Personnel
Command in their March 2003 letter to the applicant.  Base on his three 6
month extensions his ETS date at the time of his November 1998 reenlistment
action would have been 1 December 1998.

3.  The fact that officials from the Army Reserve Personnel Command were
only aware of the applicant’s last two extension documents, and did not
have a copy of his first extension, explains why they believed that his ETS
date was 1 June 1998 and that his November 1998 reenlistment resulted in a
5 month break in service. Had they been aware of all three extensions they
would have realized that no break in service had occurred and as such, no
correction action was required for the November 1998 reenlistment document.

4.  Although the applicant’s extension documents do contain multiple
errors, those errors have not caused any error or injustice in the
calculation of the applicant’s overall service and as such, no purpose
would be served by correcting those errors.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JH___  ___LE __  ___HF __  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.




                                  ______James Hise_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105423                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041118                                |
|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.       |112.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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