RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002455


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Conrad V. Meyer               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |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 (Report of Separation from
Active Duty) be corrected to show his correct dates of service.

2.  The applicant states that he was drafted on 26 February 1966,
reenlisted in November 1967, and once again in May 1970.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of three honorable discharge certificates
and 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 which
occurred on   6 December 1977, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 7 February 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 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 was inducted on 25 August 1966
and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 29 November
1967, in order to reenlist.  He reenlisted on 30 November 1967, for
6 years, and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 10 May
1970.

4.  The applicant reenlisted on 11 May 1970, for 6 years, with an
established expiration of term of service (ETS) of 10 May 1976.  Item 49
(Prior Service) of his enlistment contract, dated 11 May 1970, properly
documents his prior service.

5.  The applicant's records contain an oath of extension of enlistment,
dated 15 July 1974, which shows that he was extended for 18 months to
complete an overseas tour.

6.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 6 December 1977.

7.  Item 9d (Effective Date), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows the
entry    "77 12 06" (6 December 1977) and item 15 (Date Entered Active Duty
This Period) shows the entry "70 05 11" (11 May 1970).

8.  Item 18a (Record of Service/Net Active Service This Period), of the
applicant's DD Form 214, shows the entry "07 06 26" (7 years, 6 months, and
26 days), item 18b (Prior Active Service), shows the entry "03 08 16"
(3 years, 8 months, and 16 days) and item 18c (Total Active Service) shows
the entry "11 03 12" (11 years, 3 months, and 12 days).

9.  The applicant provided a copy of three DD Forms 256 (Honorable
Discharge Certificate), dated 29 November 1967, 10 May 1970, and 6 December
1977, which all show that he was honorably discharged.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 governs the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It
states, in pertinent part, that item 9d will be completed to show the
effective date of separation this period and, item 15 will be completed to
show the date entered active duty, this period.  Item 18a will be completed
to show the amount of net active service this period, computed by
subtracting item 15 from 9d.  Item 18b will be completed to show the amount
of prior active service, less lost time, if any, and item 18c will be
completed to show the total active service by adding item 18a to 18b.

11.  The DD Form 256A will be prepared and given to Soldiers who are
honorably discharged at the completion of their statutory military
service obligation or when they are discharged from service, whichever
comes first.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his DD Form 214 does not reflect his
correct dates of service is incorrect.  The applicant's prior service from
25 August 1966 to 29 November 1967, which consist of 1 year, 3 months, and
5 days, and his service from 30 November 1967 to 20 May 1970, which consist
of 2 years, 5 months, and 11 days, for a combined total amount of 3 years,
8 months, and 16 days.

2.  The applicant's enlistment contract, dated 11 May 1970, properly
documented his prior service.  Therefore, item 18b of his DD Form 214
properly documents his prior service of 3 years, 8 months, and 16 days.
Therefore, his DD Form 214 properly shows his correct dates of service and
there is insufficient basis to correct his DD Form 214.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 6 December 1977; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 5 December 1980.  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

_JEV____  __CVM__  ___LB___  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. Vick_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002455                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051026                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19771206                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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