RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 MARCH 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040002228


      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. 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.  The applicant requests that his 1973 separation document be corrected
to show that he held a secondary military specialty (SMOS) of 91B20
(medical corpsman).

2.  The applicant states that specialty 91B20 is “shown” on his “Reserve
Papers” and that he served as a field medic with the 37th Armor Battalion
at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  He states that he needs the information on his
separation document for a “career opportunity.”

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a June 1973 “statement of acceptance”
to accept an early release from active duty to fill a vacancy in a Reserve
unit.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 4 July 1973.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 12 May 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.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 2 October 1970 and was trained as a clerk typist and awarded
a military specialty of 71B.

4.  In August 1972 the applicant was assigned to the 37th Armor Battalion
at Fort Knox.  Item 38 (principal duty) on his Department of the Army Form
20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) indicates that he performed duties as a
supply specialist (76Y) for the duration of his assignment at Fort Knox.

5.  His records contain no evidence that he ever attended a training course
leading to an award of a medical specialty, that he ever performed duties
in the medical field, or that he was ever awarded a secondary specialty of
any kind.

6.  The document submitted in support of his request is a Statement of
Acceptance which was authenticated by the applicant and his career
counselor on 19 June 1973.  The statement indicated that the applicant was
accepting a 90-day early release from active duty in order to fill a
vacancy with a Reserve unit in Florida.  The document contains the typed
entry “71B20/91B20” above a space for “MOS.”  The document indicated that
the early release date from active duty would be on or about 4 July 1973.

7.  On 4 July 1973 the applicant was released from active duty and assigned
to a Civil Affairs unit in Florida.  His separation document reflects an
MOS of 71B20 in item 23a (specialty number & title) on his separation
document.  The applicant authenticated the accuracy of the information on
his separation document by his signature in item 32.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time and which established the
policies and provisions for the preparation of separation documents,
indicated that item 23a would reflect the “primary MOS code number, title,
and date of award.”  In addition, the evaluation score (ES) for that
primary MOS code was also recorded.  If the enlisted Soldier had not
received an evaluation score the “none” was recorded.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence that the applicant was ever awarded a secondary
specialty or that he received any medical training which would have
resulted in award of a medical MOS.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, there is no indication that he
performed duties as a field medic while assigned to Fort Knox.  Rather, his
principal duty title was recorded as supply specialist.

3.  Although the source of the “71B20/91B20” entry on the June 1973
“Statement of Acceptance” is not clear, it is possible that it was a
typographical error as there is no indication that the applicant was
qualified in the medical field or that he ever held a medical specialty.

4.  Additionally, even if the applicant would have held a secondary
specialty, in 1973, at the time of his separation, only an individual’s
primary MOS code information was recorded on his separation document.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 July 1973; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 3 July 1976.  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                 |AR20040002228                           |
|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]