RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:    AR20040010632


      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. Lisa O. Guion                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 Item 23a (Specialty Number and
Title) of his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his primary military occupational
specialty (PMOS) is incorrectly shown on his separation document.  He
indicates that he is a combat trained veteran who was twice wounded in
Vietnam with injuries serious enough for him to be sent home.  He further
claims that after he was reassigned and stationed in Camp Zama Japan, he
changed his PMOS so that he could return to Vietnam.  He finally states
that he managed to return to
Chu-Lai Vietnam with the 196th Infantry Brigade to complete his tour duty.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document and a
Statement in Support of Claim (Veteran Form 21-4138) in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 8 September 1970.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 18 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's military records show he enlisted and entered active
duty on 13 August 1966.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort
Dix, New Jersey and advanced individual training (AIT) and basic airborne
training at
Fort Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT, he was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) "11B1P" (Light Weapons Infantryman-
Parachutist).

4.  The applicant’s Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) confirms, in
Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties), that he was awarded MOS
"11B1P" on 3 March 1967.  It also shows that he was awarded PMOS "71B2O on
13 September 1968 and that MOS "11B1P" was deleted.

5.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the DA Form 20 shows the applicant
was a patient assigned to a Medical Holding Detachment in Vietnam from 4
August 1968 to 21 September 1968.  It further shows he performed in the
Duty MOS (DMOS) "11B1P" from the time he completed AIT until 23 October
1968, at which time it was changed to DMOS 71B2O.

6.  Item 40 (Wounds) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows that he received a
gunshot wound to the left arm on 11 June 1968, and fragment wounds to the
buttocks on 19 July 1968.

7.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket contains
Headquarters, United States Army Personnel Center Far East Special Orders
(SO)
Number (#) 180, dated 13 September 1968.  These orders awarded the
applicant the PMOS "71B2O" (Clerk Typist) and the PMOS "11B1P" was
withdrawn under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 600-200, paragraph 2-
32d(4).

8.  On 8 September 1970, the applicant was honorably discharged from active
duty.  The DD Form 214 he was issued on the day of his discharge shows he
completed 3 years total active service.  Item 23a contains the entry
"71B3O, Clerk Typist."  This list of awards contained on this document
includes the Combat Infantryman Badge and Parachutist Badge.  The applicant
authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of
Person Being Transferred or Discharged).

9.  Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, prescribed Army policy
and criteria concerning the Enlisted Personnel Management System.  Chapter
2 provided, in pertinent part, for the withdrawal of an MOS and it stated
that all five characters of an awarded MOS will be withdrawn by the
reclassification authority for medical/physical inability to perform
required duties of the MOS.  It
 further stated that consideration would be given to duties normally
associated with the MOS and not limited to duties currently performed by
individual in the present duty assignment.  The MOS would be withdrawn
when, in the opinion of the reclassification board, after considering the
statement of the medical profiling officer and/or medical board and other
pertinent factors, the continued performance of duty in the MOS would
unduly aggravate the medical condition.
10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation
documents that must be prepared for soldiers on retirement, discharge,
release from active duty service, or control of the active Army.  Chapter 2
of this regulation contains guidance on the preparation and distribution of
the DD Form 214.  Paragraph 52 in effect at the time stated, in pertinent
part, that the primary MOS and specialty code number held on the date of
separation would be entered in Item 23.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his MOS is incorrectly shown on his
separation document has been carefully considered.  There is insufficient
evidence to support this claim.  The governing regulation in effect at the
time of the applicant’s separation stipulated that the primary MOS and
specialty code number held on the date of separation would be entered in
Item 23 of the
DD Form 214.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was awarded PMOS
"11B1P" upon completion of AIT.  The DA Form 20 corroborates the
applicant's statement that he was wounded in combat in Vietnam, and it
confirms that he was reclassified to PMOS "71B" on 13 September 1968, while
assigned to a medical holding detachment in a patient status.

3.  The record also includes orders reclassifying the applicant to PMOS
71B30 and withdrawing MOS 11B1P, by reason of medical/physical
disqualification.  As a result, the Item 23 entry on the applicant’s DD
Form 214 was and remains valid.  Further, the applicant’s combat experience
and record is well documented by the awards listed on his DD Form 214,
which include the Combat Infantryman Badge and Parachutist Badge.
Therefore, there appears to be no error or injustice related to the MOS
entry on his separation document.

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 8 September 1970.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 6 September 1973.  However, he failed to 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

___JEA _  ___RTD _  ___LMD _  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.




            ___James E. Anderholm__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010632                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |NA                                      |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/08/04                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1970/09/08                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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