RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  					
	 

	BOARD DATE:                              		25 OCTOBER 2005
	DOCKET NUMBER:  				AR20050001544


	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. Jessie B. Strickland

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. James Anderholm

Chairperson

Mr. Jose Martinez

Member

Ms. LaVerne 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 that his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect his award of the German “Shutzenschnur in Gold” Marksmanship award and that his rank be changed to corporal (Cpl). 

2.  The applicant states that he was awarded the “Shutzenschnur in Gold” Marksmanship award and it was omitted from his DD Form 214 at the time of his separation.  He also states that he was laterally appointed to the rank of Cpl and that rank should also be on his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his award of the “Shutzenschnur in Gold” Marksmanship award from the German government.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 12 October 1986.  The application submitted in this case is dated 22 December 2004 and was received on 27 January 2005.  

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.  He initially enlisted in the Ohio Army National Guard on 17 April 1978 and served as a light weapons infantryman until he was honorably discharged on 9 September 1983, to enlist in the Regular Army.

4.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 1983 for a period of 3 years and airborne training.  He was transferred to Fort Benning, Georgia, to attend airborne training and failed to successfully complete the course.

5.  He was transferred to Germany on 3 January 1984 and served as a personnel carrier driver in an infantry company in Boblingen, Germany.  He was advanced to the rank of specialist four (SP4) on 1 December 1984.  He remained in Germany until 25 June 1985, when he was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas for duty as a light vehicle driver.
6.  He remained at Fort Riley until he was honorably discharged in the rank of SP4 on 12 October 1986, due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 3 years of active service during his enlistment and was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Commendation Medal and the Good Conduct Medal.  The applicant authenticated his DD Form 214 with his signature at the time of discharge.

7.  The documents provided by the applicant indicate that the applicant was awarded the German “Shutzenschnur in Gold” Marksmanship Award by the German Armed Forces on 1 July 1985.  A review of the available records fails to show that the award was ever approved for wear by the Department of the Army. Additionally, there is no evidence to show that the applicant was laterally appointed to the rank of Cpl. 

8.  The applicant applied to this Board on 30 November 1995 requesting to have the award of the “Shutzenschnur in Gold” added to his records.  He was advised on 24 October 1997 that in accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the Board would not consider any application until a determination was made that the applicant had exhausted all of his administrative remedies.  He was advised that the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Attn: AHRC-PDO-PA, 200 Stovall Street, Suite 3S67, Hoffman II, Alexandria, Virginia  22332-0474 was the appropriate authority for approval of foreign awards.  The notification was mailed to the same address as is listed on his current application and there is no indication that the applicant exhausted his administrative remedies as he was instructed.  Inasmuch as he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, the Board will not consider the issue of the award any further until such time as he exhausts his administrative remedies and reapplies to the Board. 

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, provides, in pertinent part, that when an individual receives a foreign decoration, he or she will immediately submit a letter to Commander, HRC- Alexandria, Attn: AHRC-PDO-PA, 200 Stovall Street, Suite 3S67, Hoffman II, Alexandria, Virginia 22332-0474, requesting authority to accept and wear the foreign decoration.  The letter must be signed by the recipient and must contain the title of the decoration, name of awarding country, date and place of presentation and name and position of the person presenting the award.  A statement of the service for which the decoration was awarded, together with all accompanying documents, to include an official translation, a brief description of the recipient’s duty assignment during the period recognized by the award and the full name, social security number, position and grade of the recipient will accompany the request.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  A review of the applicant’s records as well as the documents submitted by the applicant fails to show that the applicant was laterally appointed to the rank of Cpl.  Therefore, absent such evidence, it must be presumed that he was properly discharged in the rank of SP4.

2.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to change his DD Form 214 to show that he was serving in the rank of Cpl at the time of his discharge.

3.  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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 12 October 1986; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 11 October 1989.  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

___JA___  ____JM _  ____LD  _  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 Anderholm______
		        CHAIRPERSON





INDEX

CASE ID
AR20050001544
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
2005/10/25
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19831013
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, CH 4. . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON
ETS
BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY
AR 15-185
ISSUES         1.107.0000
46/forn dec 
2.100.0000
1021/rank
3.

4.

5.

6.