RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009890


      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. Prevolia Harper               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Margaret K. Patterson         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |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 correction of his DD form 214 (Armed Forces
of the United Stated Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his correct
term of service.

2.  The applicant states that his term of service should be 3 years instead
of
2 years as currently shown on his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period
5 December 1966 in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 3 December 1969.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 6 November 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.  The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 1
December 1966.  He was released from active duty on 5 December 1966 (it
appears that the applicant decided to enlist in the Regular Army).  His
induction records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 December
1966 for a period of 3 years.

4.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows that
he served in Germany from 25 May 1967 through 11 March 1969.  The DA Form
20 also show he served in Vietnam from 25 April 1969 through 28 November
1969.

5. The applicant’s records contain two DD Forms 214.  The first DD Form 214
for the period 5 December 1966 shows the applicant served a total of 5 days
on active duty.



6.  The second DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged on
3 December 1969 and transferred to the United States Army Reserve.  Item
22a(1) of his DD Form 214 shows his net service for this period was 2
years,
11 months, and 28 days.  Item 22b shows that he completed a total of 3
years,
and 3 days of active duty service and included 5 days total prior active
service.

7.  The applicant authenticated both DD Forms 214 for each period of
service.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) governs the preparation of
the DD Form 214.  In the version in effect at the time, it states that the
DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous
active duty.
It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of
release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contends that his DD Form 214 was incorrect and does
not accurately reflect his term of service.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support this claim.

2.  The applicant’s military records were carefully reviewed.  However, it
appears he was properly credited for his military service.  Item 22a(1) of
his DD Form 214 for the period ending on 3 December 1969 which shows the
applicant’s net service for that period was 2 years, 11 months, and 28
days.  The applicant’s total service (shown in item 22b) is 3 years and 3
days.  A copy will be provided to the applicant.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the entries on the applicant’s DD Form
214 coincide with the entries contained on his DA Form 20 and with
documents and information on file in his military records.  Further, the
applicant authenticated his DD Form 214 with his signature on the date of
his separation, thereby verifying that the information contained on the
separation document was correct at the time it was prepared and issued.

4.  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.





5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 3 December 1969.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 2 December 1972.  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

__MKP__  __REB __  __ LMB__  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  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.




                                  ___Margaret K. Patterson __
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009890                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050825                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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