RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 MARCH 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040003063


      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. Raymond Wagner                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jonathon Rost                 |     |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 the address information reflected in items
19a (mailing address after separation) and 19b (nearest relative) be
switched.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of separation, he
gave his “off-base” address instead of his home address as the mailing
address after separation.  He states that he did not examine his separation
document closely enough and now “understands the significance of the
error.”

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 15 May 1992.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
10 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.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 16 May 1989.  His home of record address at the time of
enlistment was on 82nd Street in Chicago, Illinois.  The applicant was
eventually assigned to a unit at Fort Ord, California and on 15 May 1992
was released from active duty at that location.  Item 19a on his separation
document reflects an apartment address in Seaside, California while item
19b reflects an address for a woman named Debra on West Canal in Blue
Island, Illinois.

4.  In 1991 the applicant completed a Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance
election document indicating his mother “Debra” as beneficiary.  Her
address was listed as the same address reflected in item 19b on the
applicant’s separation document.



5.  According to the address information on the applicant’s application to
the Board, he is currently residing in Phoenix, Illinois.

6.  Army Regulation 635-5, which establishes the policies and provisions
for the preparation and distribution of the Department of Defense Form 214
(Armed Forces of the Untied States Report of Transfer or Discharge) stated
at the time, that item 19a would reflect a reflect a permanent address for
mailing purposes.  The “permanent” address served as a basis for contacting
a Soldier within a short time after separation in the event the need arose.
 It stated that item 19b should reflect the name and address of a relative
who would know the Soldier’s location and address.  Neither address was
intended to be changed or updated each time the individual or family member
relocated following a Soldier’s separation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The address information contained on the applicant’s separation
document was accurate at the time the document was prepared.  The fact that
he now considered the address in item 19a as a temporary address following
his separation is not evidence that it was erroneous at the time, or that
an injustice is created by not changing that address.

2.  The address in item 19b was the address of his mother and as such would
also have been an appropriate address for inclusion on his separation
document.

3.  Both entries were never intended to be updated or changed each time a
former Soldier or his or her nearest relative relocated in the years
following his or her separation from active duty. The addresses have served
the purpose for which they were designed.  No error or injustice is created
by the addresses currently reflected on the applicant’s separation document
and as such, no action is required to change that information.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 15 May 1992; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
14 May 1995.  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

___RW__  ___JM  __  ___JR __  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.




                                  ____ Raymond Wagner_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040003063                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050315                                |
|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]