RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:             OCTOBER 26, 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:       AR2004101987


      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. Deyon Battle                  |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Eloise Prendergast            |     |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 Report of Separation (DD Form 214) be
corrected to show his military occupational specialty (MOS) as military
policeman instead of clerk-typist, as currently reflected.

2.  The applicant states that the company clerk changed his MOS without his
knowledge.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 23 March 2971.  The application submitted in
this case is dated 29 December 2003.

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 limitation 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.  On 24 March 1969, he enlisted in the Army in Bloomington, Illinois, for
2 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his basic
combat training and his advanced individual training; therefore, on 25 July
1969, he was awarded a 95B10 (military police) MOS.

4.  Special Orders Number 197 was published on 9 October 1970, withdrawing
his 95B10 MOS and awarding him a 71B20 (clerk typist) MOS.

5.  The applicant continued to perform duties in the clerk typist MOS until
he was released from active duty (REFRAD) and transferred to the United
States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) on 23 march 1971.  He
had completed 2 years of total active service.



6.  Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of
the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will
be prepared to reflect an individual's service as it exists on the date of
REFRAD or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted in that he did successfully
complete his training as a military police and he performed the duties of a
military police from 25 July 1969 until 9 October 1970.  However, in
accordance with the applicable regulation, his DD Form 214 was prepared to
reflect his service at the time of his REFRAD.

3.  His records clearly show that he performed the duties and was assigned
in a clerk-typist MOS from 9 October 1970 until he was discharged on 23
March 1971.  Therefore, the MOS currently reflected on his DD Form 214 is
correct.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 23 March 1971; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 22 March 1974.  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

ep______  js______  cg______  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.




            __    __John Slone___
                    CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101987                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041026                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000.0000/ADMIN MATTERS             |
|2.  6                   |100.0500.0000/CHANGE MOS                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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