RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF


      BOARD DATE:           23 November 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004103238


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert J. Osborn              |     |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 his record be corrected to
reflect the total time he served in the Army.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served in the Army for almost
10 years, but his record reflects only 3 years of service.

3.  The applicant provides copies of Discharge Certificates, dated 8 July
1965,
2 January 1974 and 12 January 1974 respectively, along with a Certificate
of Training, dated 17 December 1960, in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 12 January 1975.  The application submitted in this case
was received 23 January 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 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.  The applicant’s record shows he initially enlisted in the Ohio Army
National Guard (OARNG) on 9 July 1959.  On 18 June 1960, he entered active
duty and attended basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and advanced
individual training at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  Upon completion of training,
he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 111.0 (Light Weapons
Infantryman).

4.  On 17 December 1960, the applicant was honorably released from active
duty and returned to the control of the OARNG.  The separation document he
was issued confirms he completed 6 months of active military service.
5.  On 8 July 1962, the applicant was honorably discharged from the OARNG
at the expiration of his term of service.  The separation document (NGB
Form 22) he was issued at the time confirms he was transferred to the
United States Army Reserve (USAR) to complete his military service
obligation (MSO).

6.  On 8 July 1965, upon completion of his MSO, the applicant was honorably
discharged from the USAR.  At the time, he had completed a total of 6 years
of military service.

7.  On 3 January 1973, the applicant reenlisted in the USAR and served in
that status until being honorably discharged on 12 January 1975.

8.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was
obtained from the Chief, Veterans Support Branch, Human Resources Command
(HRC), St. Louis, Missouri.  This official confirms the applicant completed
a total of 8 years and 20 days of Reserve military service, which included
6 months of active duty service.  She further confirms that DD Forms 214
are only issued for periods of active duty service of 90 or more days and
that members of the USAR do not receive DD Forms 214 for their Reserve
service.

9.  On 3 June 2004, the applicant was provided a copy of the HRC advisory
opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond.  To date, he has
failed to reply.

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.  It also
establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form
214.

11.  Paragraph 2-1 of the separation documents regulation contains guidance
on preparing a DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that a DD Form
214 will be prepared on Reserve Component (RC) soldiers who complete 90
days or more of continuous active duty for training, Full-Time National
Guard Duty, active duty for special work, temporary tours of active duty,
or Active Guard Reserve service. There are no provisions for issuing a DD
Form 214s to USAR soldiers for Reserve service or active duty service of
less than 90 days.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that all his military service is not properly
accounted for in his records has been carefully considered.  However, there
is insufficient evident to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant completed a total of
8 years and 20 days of RC military service in the OARNG and USAR,
which included 6 months of active duty service for which he was issued a
DD Form 214.

3.  By regulation, USAR soldiers are not issued a DD Form 214 for non-
active service and only receive a DD Form 214 for active duty service
periods of 90 or more days.  The record confirms the applicant was issued a
DD Form 214 for the one period of qualifying active duty service he
completed.  As a result, there does not appear to any error or injustice
related to the documented military service in the applicant’s record.  As a
result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the
requested relief.

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 12 January 1975.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 11 January 1978.  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

__RJO__  __FE____  __JTM___  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.




            ____Fred Eichorn________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004103238                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/211/23                             |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1975/12/DD                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-178                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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