RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           3 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001083


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry J. Olson                |     |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, credit for two years of active
Federal service.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was drafted and started
training on
29 January 1969, and was credited with completing 1 year, 9 months and 7
days of active military service on his separation document (DD Form 214).
He claims he should have been credited with two years of active Federal
service from
29 January 1969 through 29 January 1971.  He states that he works for the
United States Post Office and is going to retire, but his DD Form 214 only
credits him with 1 year, 9 months and 7 days of active military service
when it should in fact read two years.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 5 November 1970.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 24 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.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) confirms, in
Item 11 (Enlisted, Inducted, Reenlisted, Extended and or Ordered to Active
Duty), that he was inducted into the Army of the United States (AUS) and
entered active duty on 29 January 1969.

4.  Item 22 of the applicant’s DA Form 20 shows he was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) and Item 33 (Appointments
and Reductions) shows he was promoted to specialist four (SP4) on 4 April
1970 and that this was the highest rank he attained while serving on active
duty.

5.  On 5 November 1970, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms at the time, he was assigned
to the Valley Forge General Hospital, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania.
6.  The applicant’s separation document also confirms that he was separated
under the provisions of section VII, chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200,
by reason of early release of enlisted members of medical holding units
upon completion of hospitalization.  Item 22a(1) (Net Service This Period)
of the
DD Form 214 confirms he completed a total of 1 year, 9 months and 7 days
of active military service.  Item 22c (Foreign and/or Sea Service) shows
he completed 1 year and 6 days of foreign service in the RVN and
Item 30 (Remarks) shows he served in the RVN from 24 June 1969 through
29 June 1970.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time of
the applicant’s separation, contained guidance on the preparation of the DD
Form 214.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the period entered in Item
22a(1) would be the service completed between date entered in Item 10c
(Date of Induction) and in Item 11d (Effective Date).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that he should be credited with two years of
active military service was carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was inducted into the AUS

and entered active duty on 29 January 1969, and he honorably separated on
5 November 1970, by reason of early release upon completion of
hospitalization. The active duty service he completed between these two
dates was 1 year,
9 months and 7 days, and this period is accurately reflected in Item 22a(1)
of his DD Form 214 in accordance with the applicable regulation.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 5 November 1970.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 4 November 1973.  However, he 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

___MHM   __LJO___  ___LMB_  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.




            ____Melvin H. Meyer ___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001083                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/02/03                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/11/05                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C5                           |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Early Release - Hospital Patient        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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