RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 APRIL 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040003882


      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. Larry Bergquist               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry 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, that the entry “92S10 00 FABRIC
REPAIR SPECIALIST – 10 YRS – 6 MOS” be deleted from item 11 (primary
specialty) on his 2003 separation document.

2.  The applicant states that he only served 6 months as a “fabric
repairer” and then his unit, the 167th Maintenance Company, closed down.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a 1993 order voluntarily transferring
him from the 167th Maintenance Company to the 542nd Transportation Company.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant served an
initial period of active duty in the United States Marine Corps and then
served in various components of the United States Army.

2.  In April 1987, while a member of the Indiana Army National Guard, he
held military specialty 64C (motor transport operator) and 11B
(infantryman).  In April 1988 he enlisted in the Army Reserve for service
in his transportation specialty.  He was ordered to active duty in support
of the Persian Gulf War and continued to serve in his transportation
specialty, which by that time had been converted from specialty 64C to 88M.
 He was discharged from the Army Reserve in December 1991.

3.  On 15 December 1992 he again enlisted in the Army Reserve.  Included as
part of his enlistment option was training in specialty 43M (fabric repair
specialist).  He successfully completed training in that specialty in April
1993 and was assigned to the 167th Maintenance Company.

4.  As noted by the applicant, in August 1993 he was voluntarily
transferred from the 167th Maintenance Company in Orland Park, Illinois, to
the 542nd Transportation Company in Kingsbury, Indiana.  A 7 March 2001
order indicates that he was transferred between troop program units in
Kingsbury, Indiana.  However, those orders do indicate that he was being
assigned to “management designator” 43M.  The orders included a paragraph
and line number for that assignment.

5.  In 2003 the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom.  He remained on active duty until 27 September
2003.  His separation document indicates that upon his release from active
duty he was assigned to a quartermaster unit in Woodriver, Illinois.  Item
11 (primary specialty) indicates that he held specialty 88M for a little
over 12 years and specialty 92S for a little over 10 years.  In October
2001 specialty 43M was converted to specialty 92S.  The applicant
authenticated the accuracy of the information on his separation document by
his signature.

6.  Army Regulation 635-5, which establishes the policies and procedures
for the preparation of separation documents, states that item 11 will
reflect the titles of military specialties held by an individual for at
least 1 year.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the applicant may actually have performed duties in specialty
43M/92S for 6 months, there is no indication that the specialty was ever
withdrawn and as such, it would be appropriate to record the specialty on
his separation document.

2.  The 2001 order which transferred the applicant between troop program
units suggests that the applicant was assigned to a fabric repair
specialist position even at that point.  However, the length of time an
individual actually performed duties in a particular specialty is not
really relevant to the entry on his separation document.  The entry merely
reflects those specialties that an individual may have held for at least 12
months.

3.  Soldiers often hold more than one specialty, although they may only
actually have performed duties in one of those specialties.  However,
considering that the separation document is a reflection of an individual’s
military service, it is appropriate to include specialties that the
applicant was qualified in, and which he held at the time of separation,
which may assist him in future employment.

4.  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

___RW __  ___LB __  ___LO __  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.





                                  ____ Raymond Wagner_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040003882                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050419                                |
|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]