RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          22 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050008237


      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. Ted Kanamine                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McPherson            |     |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 correction of his military records to show a
different date of birth and place of birth.  He also requests that his
mother's maiden name be changed.

2.  The applicant states his date of birth is 15 June 1925, he was born in
Johnson City, Illinois, and his mother's maiden name was "Krantz."

3.  The applicant provides a birth certificate and a letter from his
brother.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged errors which occurred
on
30 June 1964.  The application submitted in this case is dated 20 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 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 was inducted on 14 June 1944 and honorably discharged on
12 May 1946 to enlist in the Regular Army.  He enlisted on 13 May 1946 and
remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments (with one short
period of commissioned service) until he retired on 30 June 1964 in the
rank of sergeant major.

4.  The applicant’s Report of Physical Examination and Induction, Service
Records, service personnel records, and five discharge documents show his
date of birth as 15 February 1926 and his place of birth as Carbondale,
Illinois.

5.  The available records do not show the applicant's mother's maiden name.

6.  In support of his claim, the applicant provided a birth certificate
which shows his date of birth as 15 June 1925 and his place of birth as
Johnston (sic) City, Illinois.  This certificate also shows his mother's
maiden name was "Krants" (sic).




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  Although the applicant's birth certificate shows his date of birth as
15 June 1925 and his place of birth as Johnston City, Illinois, it appears
he appropriately served on and was released from active duty under the same
date of birth and place of birth as shown in his records.  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 and place of birth will be on hand.

3.  Since the available records do not show the applicant's mother's maiden
name, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to change his
mother's maiden name.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged errors
now under consideration on 30 June 1964; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 29 June
1967.  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

TK_____  RD_____  _JM_____  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.




            __Ted Kanamine________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050008237                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051222                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0200                                |
|2.                      |100.0800                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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