RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          8 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050005975


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Diane Armstrong               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Delia Trimble                 |     |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 Transfer or
Discharge) be corrected to show the correct spelling of his last name, date
of entry, discharge date, and date of birth.

2.  The applicant states his last name is spelled F--c--- not F----- and
that he entered the Army at the end of October 1970 and was discharged in
September 1971.  He also contends that he was born on 1 July 1952 not on 2
July 1951.

3.  The applicant provides a birth certificate and copy of his DD Form 214.


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged errors which occurred
on
26 August 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated 11 April
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.  The applicant’s DD Form 398 (Statement of Personal History), dated
28 January 1971, shows his last name is F--c---.  He reported that he was
born on 2 July 1951 in item 5 (Date of Birth) on this form.

4.  Item 5 (Last Name, First Name, Middle Name) on the applicant’s DD Form
4 (Enlistment Contract) shows his last name is F-----.  However, his
signature shows “F--c---.”  His enlistment contract shows he enlisted on 29
January 1971 for a period of 3 years and item 21 (Date of Birth) shows the
entry, “02 JUL 51.”

5.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Polk Special
Orders Number 233, dated 25 August 1971, show the applicant was honorably
discharged effective 26 August 1971 for unsuitability.

6.  Item 1 (Last Name, First Name, Middle Name) on the applicant’s DD Form
214 shows his last name is F-----.  Item 6 (Date of Rank) on his DD Form
214 shows the entry, “29 May 71.”  Item 9 (Date of Birth) on his DD Form
214 shows the entry, “2 Jul 51.”  Item 11d (Effective Date) on his DD Form
214 shows the entry “26 Aug 71.”  Item 17c (Date of Entry) on his DD Form
214 shows the entry, “29 May 71.”  Items 22a(1) (Net Service This Period),
22a(3) (Total), and 22b (Total Active Service) on his DD Form 214 show he
served 2 months and 28 days.

7.  The applicant’s service personnel records show his last name as F--c---
and F-----.  However, all of his signatures on various records are legible
and show his last name is F--c---.  Some records show the applicant was
born on 2 July 1951 and some records show he was born on 2 July 1952.

8.  In support of his claim, the applicant provided a copy of his birth
certificate which shows his last name is F--c--- and his date of birth as 1
July 1952.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for
Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military
service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the
preparation of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that the DD
Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous
active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service
at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant reported his last name was F--c--
- on his DD Form 398 prior to his enlistment.  His signature is legible
throughout his service personnel records and shows that his last name is F--
c---.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct item 1 on his DD Form
214.

2.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he enlisted on 29 May 1971.  Although
the applicant contends that he entered the Army at the end of October 1970,
his enlistment contract shows he enlisted on 29 January 1971.  Therefore,
17c on his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he enlisted on 29
January 1971.

3.  Although the applicant contends that he was discharged in September
1971, his discharge orders show he was discharged effective 26 August 1971
which is properly reflected in item 11d on his DD Form 214.  Therefore,
there is no basis for amending his discharge date.

4.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the
accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those
records should actually reflect the conditions and circumstances that
existed at the time the records were created.  Although the applicant
contends that his date of birth is incorrect, it appears he reported that
he was born on 2 July 1951 when he enlisted.  It is also noted that his
service personnel records contain two different dates of birth that do not
match the date of birth on his birth certificate.  While the Board
understands the applicant's desire to have the records changed, it finds no
basis for compromising the integrity of the Army's records.  This Board
action will be filed in the applicant's military records so a record of his
date of birth will be on hand.

5.  Since the evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted on 29 January
1971 and was discharged on 26 August 1971, it would be appropriate to
correct items  22a(1), 22a(3), and 22b on his DD Form 214  to show he
served 6 months and 29 days.  It would also be appropriate to correct item
6 on his DD Form 214 to show 29 January 1971 instead of 29 May 1971.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged errors
now under consideration on 26 August 1971; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 25
August 1974.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations; however, based on the available evidence it would be in the
interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

SK_____  _DA_____  _DT_____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial 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:

      a.  deleting the entry, “F-----” in item 1 on his DD Form 214;

      b.  adding the entry, “F--c---” in item 1 on his DD Form 214;

      c.  deleting the entry in item 6 on his DD Form 214;

      d.  adding the entry, “29 January 1971” in item 6 on his DD Form 214;
      e.  deleting the entry in item 17c on his DD Form 214;

      f.  adding the entry, “29 January 1971” in item 17c on his DD Form
214;

      g.  deleting the entries in 22a(1), 22a(3), and 22b on his DD Form
214; and
      h.  adding the entry, “6 months and 29 days” in items 22a(1), 22a(3)
and 22b on his DD Form 214.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
amending items 9 and 11d on his DD Form 214.



            __Stanley Kelley______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005975                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051108                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0100                                |
|2.                      |100.0200                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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