RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


          IN THE CASE OF:

      BOARD DATE:           5 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006525


      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. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Randolph J. Fleming           |     |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, reconsideration of his request to correct his
military records to show a different first and middle name.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes his request was
supported by the information he provided with his original application.  He
also states that he would like a copy of the documents that remain on file
in his records.  He also asks if the comments contained in paragraph 2 of
the DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS section of the original Records of
Proceedings means his record has been corrected.  Finally, he asks why the
statute of limitations was not excused in his case.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of his
application.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, that the applicant’s request that his
military records be corrected to show the proper first and middle names be
reconsidered and granted.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that his organization (Veterans of Underage
Military Service) has many distinguished members, deceased and living, who
joined the military while they were underage during times of war.  Counsel
claims that during the time of the applicant’s service many young men and
women were extremely anxious to serve our country.  He states that it is
estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 youngsters somehow managed to
enlist in the military before they could legally do so.  They did this by
altering birth certificates, baptismal certificates, and yes, by adopting
the name and dates of birth of siblings, and the applicant’s case is not an
isolated one.

3.  Counsel further indicates that he is unsure of how the military records
could be compromised in this case, as indicated in the original Record of
Proceedings, and he would think that a record that knowingly contains the
wrong information and is not corrected is compromised.  He further
indicated that he seriously doubts that anyone who was discharged from the
armed forces of the United States was warned that there was a statute of
limitations for correcting their records, he knows he was not.  He
concludes by requesting the Board again review the applicant’s case,
keeping in mind there are many other patriotic Americans who did the same
thing he did in order to serve their country.

4.  Counsel provides a self-authored letter in support of the application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2004106589, on
4 January 2005.

2.  During its original review of the case, the Board found the applicant
enlisted in, served and was separated under the first and middle name
recorded in his records.  It further concluded that for historical
purposes, the data and information contained in the record should actually
reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time.  As a
result, it determined there was an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant
the requested relief.

3.  The Board also informed the applicant that the Record of Proceedings
would be placed on file in his military record so that it could be used to
clarify the difference between the first and middle names recorded in his
record and his real first and middle name.  Finally, the Board elected not
to waive the three-year statute of limitations established by law after it
determined that the overall merits of the case did not support a correction
to the record.

4.  The new argument raised by the applicant and his counsel is that many
patriotic Americans fraudulently enlisted in order to serve their country
during a time of war.  Further, they take issue with the denial of a waiver
of the statute of limitations and argue that the Board’s conclusion that it
found no basis for compromising the integrity of the applicant’s military
record is inconsistent with its decision to not correct a record it knows
is in error, which would already be compromised.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for reconsideration and the argument raised by
him and his counsel have been carefully considered.  However, it fails to
provide an evidentiary basis to support amending the original Board
decision, or granting the requested relief.

2.  The applicant and his counsel are advised that by law there is a three-
year statute of limitations on submitting an application for correction of
military records.  However, the Board has the ability to waive this statute
when there is sufficient evidence to support a correction of the record.

3.  In the applicant’s case, the Board only elected not to waive this
statute of limitations after it had conducted a full merit review of the
case and determined there was insufficient evidence to support granting the
requested relief.  Had the Board determined a correction to the military
record was warranted, it could and would have waived the three-year statute
of limitations.

4.  The applicant and his counsel also take issue with the Board’s
conclusion that it found no basis for compromising the integrity of the
Army’s record.  They argue that military record containing a known error
that is not corrected is already compromised.  However, the Army’s interest
is to maintain the historical accuracy of the record, which is to say the
record should actually reflect the conditions and circumstances that
existed at the time the record was created.  In this case, that means the
applicant’s record should continue to reflect the name under which he
enlisted, served and was separated.

5.  The applicant also indicated he did not know what paragraph 2 of the
Discussion and Conclusions section of the original Record of Proceedings
meant.  The Board’s decision to file the Record of Proceedings in his
military record was to make the applicant’s evidence part of the military
record, and to clarify any confusion that might arise as a result of the
difference between his real name and the name recorded on his record.

6.  The applicant’s request that he be provided any documents that remain
on file in his record was also considered.  However, the Board is not the
custodian of his military records.  He should request copies of his records
from the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), the agency responsible for
maintaining his records.

7.  Finally, the applicant and his counsel are advised that its decision in
this case does not detract from the honorable nature of the applicant’s
service, or from the sacrifices made by him and the many others who entered
military service when they were underage in order to serve in a time of
war.  Finally, there is no evidence suggesting that the applicant has
suffered any undue hardship or injustice as a result of the name recorded
in his military records.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WDP_  __TMR__  __RJF __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2004106589, dated 4 January 2005.




            ____William D. Powers___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006525                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |2005/01/04  (AR2004106589)              |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/01/05                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1955/04/22                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 615-250                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Release to Reserves                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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