RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          1 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000762


      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             |
|     |                                  |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |                                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |                                  |     |Member               |
|     |                                  |     |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 Item 21 (Home of Record at Time of
Entry into Active Service) of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United
States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show Waterbury, Vermont instead
of Brookline, Massachusetts.

2.  The applicant states that, upon entering active duty, he mistakenly
indicated that his home of record was Brookline, Massachusetts when, it
fact, it was only a temporary address while he was attending college.  He
desires that his true home of record, the town he lived and grew up in from
1946 to 1964, be listed so that he might have his name engraved on
Waterbury’s Vietnam War monument.

3.  The applicant provides an account of his life prior to enlisting in the
Army in 1968.  In addition, he provides: a DD Form 62 (Statement of
Acceptability) from the Selective Service Local Board #12; a petition and
letter of support from the President of the Waterbury Historical Society,
Inc.; four letters of support from former friends and classmates; and, an
excerpt from the 1964 Waterbury High School Senior Class Year Book.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice that
occurred on 9 August 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated
11 January 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 records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
4 October 1968 in Boston, Massachusetts.  He trained as a Stock Control and
Accounting Specialist and served in Vietnam and West Point, New York.  The
applicant completed his enlistment and was honorably separated on 9 August
1971 in pay grade E-5.

4.  In a letter of support of the applicant’s appeal, the President of the
Waterbury, Vermont Historical Society (and member of the Waterbury
Monuments Committee) outlines the parameters used to determine eligibility
for placement of a veteran’s name on the various town war memorials, i.e.,
Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc.  In the interest
of consistency, the committee will only place a name if the veteran’s
separation document shows his or her home of record as Waterbury, Vermont.
He goes on to explain that, fully realizing that there are some veterans
who “logically” should be on a monument would not be eligible because their
separation documents do not show the home of record as Waterbury, the
committee “left space” on each monument to add names later.  He closes by
stating that both organizations “fully and completely” support the
applicant’s request.

5.  The letters of support from former friends and classmates of the
applicant attest to the fact that the applicant lived in Waterbury, Vermont
throughout his entire childhood.  He attended the elementary, junior high,
and high schools of Waterbury.

6.  In the applicant’s letter of appeal, he states that he lived in two
different homes in Waterbury; the first from 1946 to 1951, and the second
from 1951 to 1964 when he graduated.  He continues to return for reunions
at Waterbury High School.  His parents, now both deceased, are buried in
the same community.  He states, “We were and remain a Waterbury family.”

7.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time,
provides that the home of record to be entered in Item 21 of the DD Form
214 is to be taken from the individual’s enlistment or induction record.

8.  Army Regulation 601-280 (Army Retention Program) prescribes the
procedures for preparation and completion of the DD Form 4
(Enlistment/Reenlistment Document—Armed Forces of the United States).
Table 11-1 of the regulation states that the home of record is the place
recorded as the home of the individual when commissioned, appointed,
enlisted, inducted, or ordered into the relevant tour of active duty.  The
place recorded as the home of record of the individual when reinstated,
reappointed, or reenlisted remains the same as that recorded when
commissioned, appointed, enlisted, or inducted or ordered into the relevant
tour of active duty unless there is a break in service of more than one
full day.  Only if a break in service exceeds one full day, can the home of
record be changed by the member.

9.  The Joint Travel Regulation serves as the authority for correcting a
home of record that was erroneously entered at the time of entry on active
duty.  It states, in pertinent part, that a correction must be based on
evidence that a bonafide error was made in documenting the home of record
of the individual at the time of entry into the relevant period of service.
 It must not be a place selected for the convenience of the Soldier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The home of record entered on the applicant’s DD Form 214 was correctly
entered in accordance with applicable regulations and polices in effect at
the time.  There is no evidence that an error was made by personnel in the
processing of the applicant’s separation document.

2.  Notwithstanding the above, the evidence presented by the applicant
clearly shows that he was attending college and living in Brookline,
Massachusetts at the time of his entry on active duty.  However, the
evidence also shows that he was a native of Waterbury, Vermont and that an
injustice occurred when he indicated Brookline as his home of record.  He
should have been advised to enter Waterbury.  In view of this, it would be
appropriate to correct this injustice at this time by correcting Item 21 of
his DD Form 214 to show his home of record as Waterbury, Vermont.

BOARD VOTE:

___cak__  ____jea__  ____teo_  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for 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 showing his home of record as 96 South
Main Street, Waterbury, Vermont 05676.



            __________James E. Anderholm________
                    CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000762                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051101                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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