RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 JULY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050015547


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine Taylor                |     |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 to add MOS (military occupational specialty)
76Y10 (Unit Supply Specialist) to her December 1987 separation document.

2.  The applicant states the specialty is not on her separation document
and stated, in effect, that she completed the course leading to award of
that MOS.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her course completion certificate, a
copy of orders awarding her the MOS, and a copy of her separation document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 1 December 1987.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
7 October 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 are not available to the Board.  This
case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily
consist of the documents provided by the applicant and an earlier
separation document.

4.  The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army between March
1981 and March 1984.  Her 1984 separation document notes that she was
trained as an administrative specialist and performed duties in the
administrative field (71L) for the duration of her enlistment.

5.  On 6 January 1986 the applicant returned to active duty as a member of
the New York Army National Guard.  Documents provided by the applicant
indicate she completed the Unit Supply Specialist Course at Fort Lee,
Virginia, on
26 September 1986 and was awarded MOS 76Y20.  Beyond those two documents,
there were no other documents available to the Board associated with the
applicant’s active duty as a member of the Army National Guard.
6.  On 1 December 1987 the applicant was released from active duty.  The
separation document, completed at the time of her release from active duty,
notes that she was being released upon completion of an Active Guard
Reserve tour of duty.  Item 11 (primary specialty) notes that she held MOS
7lL20F500 for 1 year and 10 months, which was the duration of her AGR tour
according to the separation document.  The applicant authenticated her
separation document.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5, which establishes the policies and procedures
for the preparation of separation document, notes that item 11 will reflect
an individual’s primary MOS and any additional specialties in which the
individual served for a period of 1 or more years.

8.  The applicant continued to serve in the Army National Guard until 1 May
1989 when she was discharged under honorable conditions.  Her National
Guard separation document does reflect that she held MOS 76Y as her primary
specialty since October 1988.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Unfortunately, the lack of military records makes it impossible to
determine what happened in the applicant’s case.  While clearly the
applicant was awarded MOS 76Y, there is no evidence, and she has not
provided any, which shows that she served in that specialty for at least 1
year.  It is also noted that the applicant authenticated her separation
document which suggests that the information contained on the form was
correct.

2.  In the absence of more compelling evidence that the applicant held MOS
76Y for the required 1 year, there is no basis to add the information to
her separation document.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 December 1987; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
30 November 1990.  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

__AR ___  __LD____  __PT ___  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.




                                  ______ Allen Raub_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050015547                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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