RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            28 MARCH 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050007533


      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:

|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry Olson                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald Grant                  |     |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 Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form
20) be corrected in item 38 to show his correct principal duties while he
was assigned to Vietnam.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his DA Form 20 incorrectly
reflects in item 38, that he served as a plumber and a light vehicle
driver.  He further states that he had the military occupational specialty
(MOS) of a pioneer (12A10) and a loader operator (62M); however, he never
served as a plumber and never drove any automobiles or trucks and worked as
a demolitions specialist while in Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DA Form 20 and his DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 19 October 1970.  The application submitted in this case was
received on 17 May 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.  He was inducted in Jackson, Mississippi, on 23 July 1969 and was
transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to undergo his basic combat
training (BCT).  He completed his BCT and was transferred to Fort Leonard
Wood, Missouri, where he underwent his advanced individual training (AIT)
as a Pioneer.  He was awarded the MOS of 12A on 21 November 1969 and was
transferred to Vietnam on 19 December 1969.

4.  His records show that he was initially assigned to Company C, 46th
Engineer Battalion for duty as a plumber until 2 February 1970 when he was
assigned the duties of a light vehicle driver.  He was awarded the
secondary MOS of a light vehicle driver (64A) on 10 April 1970.  On 1 May
1970, he was assigned the duties of a loader operator.
5.  He performed the duties of a loader operator until 17 May 1970, when he
was rehabilitatively transferred to B Company, 46th Engineer Battalion for
duty as a light vehicle driver.

6.  On 23 July 1970, the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar the
applicant from reenlistment because of habits and traits of character
manifested by repeated commission of court-martial offenses, which included
nonjudicial punishment being imposed on five occasions for sleeping on
guard duty, disobeying lawful orders and aggravated assault.  The applicant
declined to make a statement in his own behalf and the bar to reenlistment
was approved on 17 September 1970.

7.  Meanwhile, on 17 August 1970, his commander initiated action to
separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He cited the applicant’s
disciplinary record, his failure to respond to numerous counseling
sessions, his immaturity, instability and his complete disregard for higher
authority as the basis for his recommendation.  He also stated that the
applicant’s duty MOS was that of a light vehicle driver.

8.  The applicant waived all of his rights and elected not to submit a
statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the
recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General
Discharge Certificate.

9.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions at Oakland
Army Base, California on 19 October 1970.  He had served 1 year, 2 months
and 24 days of total active service and had 3 days of lost time due to
being absent without leave (AWOL).

10.  A review of his records shows that he reviewed his DA Form 20 on 16
May 1970 and the orders awarding him MOS 64A (vehicle driver) are present
in his records.  His records also contain a listing of the applicant’s
duties and his supervisors at the time he was performing those duties.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  The applicant’s contention that he did not serve as a plumber or any
type of vehicle driver has been noted.  However, he has failed to show
through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his DA Form
20 incorrectly reflects the duty positions he was assigned to while in
Vietnam.

3.  The evidence of record clearly shows the duty positions reflected on
his DA Form 20 and includes the names of his supervisors at the time.
Additionally, his records show that he was awarded the secondary MOS of a
vehicle driver.

4.  Therefore, lacking evidence to support his contentions that refute the
evidence of record, there appears to be no basis to correct his DA Form 20,
which is now an obsolete form and no longer in print.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 October 1970; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 18 October 1973.  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

____BE _  ___LO___  __RG___  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.




                                  ______Barbara Ellis________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007533                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060328                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD-UHC                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19701019                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |UNSUITABILITY                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES                  |1021/ADM MATTERS                        |
|1.100.0000              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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