RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 February 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004105728
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. Robert J. McGowan | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Walter T. Morrison | |Chairperson |
| |Mr. John T. Meixell | |Member |
| |Mr. William D. Powers | |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 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to reflect his total
active Federal service.
2. The applicant states that he needs his DD Form 214 corrected in order
to buy back his military service for retirement purposes.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 22 February 1972. The application submitted in this case
is dated 10 April 2003; it was received on 20 March 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 enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 7 October
1969. He was honorably separated on 22 February 1972. During his period
of service, he was absent without leave for 10 days from 28 March 1971 to 6
April 1971.
4. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows his total active service in Item 22b
as "1 year, 4 months, 6 days." It also shows 10 days of lost time.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The period defined by the applicant's date of enlistment (7 October
1969) and date of separation (22 February 1972) is 2 years, 4 months, 15
days.
2. Lost time is not creditable service; therefore, the applicant's total
creditable service should be 2 years, 4 months, 5 days. His DD Form 214
should be corrected.
BOARD VOTE:
__wtm___ __jtm___ __wdp___ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file. As a
result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the
individual concerned be corrected by showing in Item 22b of his DD Form 214
2 years, 4 months, 5 days.
Walter T. Morrison
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR2004105728 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON | |
|DATE BOARDED |20050201 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
|DISCHARGE REASON | |
|BOARD DECISION |GRANT |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
|ISSUES 1. |100.0000 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071806C070403
On 14 September 1971, he returned to the United States and was assigned to Ft. There is sufficient evidence in the available records to show that the applicant was awarded two ARCOM’s and the GCM. Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his military records to show this award.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060342C070421
The DD Form 214 item by item preparation instructions contained in the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation, in effect, indicated that the years, months, and days actually served on active duty would be entered in the net service this period and total active service blocks of the form. However, it does allow for an entry in the remarks block of the DD Form 214 when a member is separated under some special program that authorizes them to be credited with completing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074835C070403
The applicant’s record contains no DD Form 214 for his first period of active duty service from 20 January 1969 through 17 January 1971. The Board also notes that the record contains no evidence that a DD Form 214 was issued to the applicant for his active duty period of service from 20 January 1969 through 17 January 1971, the period during which he completed his first tour in the RVN. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004104626C070208
The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) with an effective date of 16 September 1969; a self-authored letter dated 24 February 2004; an enlisted promotion list, dated 23 August 1969; a promotion order, dated 23 August 1969; an discharge certificate, dated 7 October 1971; and an United States Army Reserve letter order, dated 22 September 1971. The applicant submitted Letter Orders Number 09-1206346, dated 22...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090196C070212
The applicant states that after he was discharged, he continued to use alcohol and drugs. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-years statute of limitations. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008031
The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 31 December 1972, the date he was discharged from active duty and placed on TDRL. This regulation state, in pertinent part, that you enter in item 22b of the DD Form 214 the total active service the Soldier has completed beginning with the earliest period of active service up to and including current period of active duty, less any period served in the Army National Guard or U.S. Army Reserve on active duty, and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076920C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. A review of his records fails to show his record of assignments in Vietnam and also fails to show any courses attended in Vietnam.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084111C070212
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The unit commander stated that the action was being taken because the applicant had served in the grade of E-2 since 7 September 1971, and had been denied promotion as of 7 January 1972. However, the Board finds no evidence in this case that supports the applicant’s allegation that racial prejudice played a part in his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057870C070420
The applicant requests, in effect, that he be awarded 30 additional awards of the Air Medal (AM). United States Army Vietnam (USARV) Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards), in effect at the time, provided guidelines for awarding the AM during the Vietnam Conflict based on the types of missions and total hours flown. Therefore, the Board concludes the applicant is entitled to one award of the AM for every 25 hours of combat flight time he accrued and based on his having accrued a total...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057039C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his pay grade be changed from E-4 to E-5. The order authorizing this transfer indicates that at that time he held the rank and pay grade of SP4/E-4.