RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        13 JANUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040000917


      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. Walter Morrison               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Eloise Prendergast            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |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 that his 1995 separation document be corrected
to reflect any awards and decorations that he may be entitled to,
completion of any military education courses, and his “participation in the
GI [Government Issue] Bill.”

2.  The applicant states none of that information is reflected on his
separation document.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 1995 separation document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 6 November 1995.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
12 April 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 limitation 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.  Records available to the Board were limited, however, there were
sufficient documents remaining for the Board to conduct a fair and
impartial review of this case.

4.  The applicant entered active duty on 22 September 1988.  Although his
available records do not contain any certification regarding when and where
the applicant completed training, his separation document does indicate
that he held a primary specialty of 94B (food service) at the time of his
separation.  His enlistment documents did not indicate that he was awarded
the specialty based on civilian acquired skills.  Information from the
Army’s Training and Doctrine Command indicates that initial food service
training is conducted at Fort Lee, Virginia and consists of 8 weeks of
training.

5.  In August 1991, while serving in pay grade E-3 at Fort Hood, Texas, he
was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal for a 3-year period ending in
September 1991.  Orders issued by the Personnel Service Company at Fort
Hood confirmed the award.  It was not, however, recorded on his separation
document.

6.  In February 1992 the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave).
He was subsequently dropped from the rolls of the Army.  In February 1995
he was apprehended by civilian authorities and confined on drug charges.
He was ultimately returned to military control in July 1995, placed in an
excess leave status pending separation processing, and on 6 November 1995
was discharged under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by
court-martial.

7.  Item 13 (decorations) on the applicant’s separation document reflects
“NONE” as does item 14 (military education).  The “NO” block is marked in
item 15a (member contributed to post-Vietnam era education assistance
program-VEAP).

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the National Defense Service Medal
may be awarded for “honorable active service” between 2 August 1990 and
30 November 1995.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 states that the Army Service Ribbon will be
awarded to members of the United States Army for successful completion of
initial entry training.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the policies and procedures for
completion and distribution of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it
states that item 14 (military education) will list formal in service
training courses successfully completed during the period of service
covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed.  This
information is to assist the soldier after separation in job placement and
counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills are not listed.

11.  The VEAP was an educational incentive program offered to individuals
who enlisted between 1 January 1977 and 30 June 1985.  The program was
designed for the post-Vietnam era soldier as a means of establishing a fund
to support their educational objectives following their military service.
For every dollar contributed by a soldier, the government matched with a
two-dollar contribution to the individual's VEAP account.  Participation in
the VEAP was a voluntary option and was replaced, in July 1985, by the
Montgomery GI Bill and the Army College Fund Program.  Education
entitlements incurred after 1985 were not recorded on an individual’s
separation document because the program is administered by the Department
of Veterans Affairs, and eligibility is determined by that agency based on
a variety of criteria, including the length of an individual’s service and
the character of their discharge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms that the applicant was awarded the Army Good
Conduct Medal and met eligibility requirements for the Army Service Record.
 Those two decorations were omitted from his separation document, which was
likely prepared based on limited records in view of the length of time the
applicant was absent from military control.  His separation document should
be corrected to reflect that information.

2.  Although the applicant may have been in the Army during a period for
which the National Defense Service Medal was authorized, because his
service was characterized as other than honorable, he would not have met
eligibility requirements for that decoration.

3.  Because the evidence does not suggest that the applicant received his
military specialty of 94B (food service) as a result of civilian acquired
skills, it can be safely concluded that he acquired the specialty as a
result of military training.  It is likely that his initial food service
training was conducted at Fort Lee, Virginia and consisted of 8 weeks of
training.  In the interest of justice and equity, it would be appropriate
to show in item 14 of the applicant’s separation document that he completed
an 8-week food service course at Fort Lee, Virginia, even though the
completion date is unknown.

4.  The applicant would not have been a VEAP participant and information
regarding eligibility or entitlement to the GI Bill is not recorded on the
separation document.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___WM  _  __EP  __  ___JM  __  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected:

      a.  by showing that he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal and the
Army Service Ribbon; and


      b.  by showing in item 14 that he completed an 8 week food service
course at Fort Lee, Virginia.


2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
entitlement to any other awards or decorations and an entry on his
separation document concerning eligibility or entitlement to GI Bill
education benefits.




                            _____ Walter Morrison_______
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000917                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050113                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |PARTIAL GRANT                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |107.00                                  |
|2.                      |110.00                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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