RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:       29 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001592


      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:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Ronald D. Gant                |     |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 records be corrected to reflect that
his military occupational specialty (MOS) was that of a radio telephone
operator (RTO).

2.  The applicant states that his MOS was changed to that of an RTO while
in Vietnam and that he never worked in his school trained MOS while he was
in the service.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation with his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 11 July 1971.  The application submitted in this case is dated
17 January 2006.

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 enlisted in Charleston, South Carolina on 10 February 1965 for a
period of 3 years.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Jackson,
South Carolina, and was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia, to undergo his
advanced individual training (AIT) as a Radio Relay Carrier Attendant in
MOS 31M10.  He completed his AIT and was awarded MOS 31M10 on 16 July 1965.


4.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 19 November 1965 and was
transferred to Vietnam on 1 April 1966.  He was advanced to the pay grade
of   E-4 on 26 July 1966 and to the pay grade of E-5 on 17 December 1966,
in MOS 31M40.

5.  He departed Vietnam on 19 March 1967 and was transferred to Fort Ord,
California, for duty as a Radio Relay Carrier Team Chief.

6.  On 19 May 1967, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years, assignment to a
short tour in the United States Army Pacific theater, and a variable
reenlistment bonus (VRB) in MOS 31M.
7.  He departed Fort Ord for an assignment in Thailand, where he served in
MOS 31M for 18 months before being transferred to Fort Gordon.  He served
in Alaska in MOS 31M from 9 August 1970 to 9 July 1971, before being
transferred to Fort Lewis, Washington for discharge.

8.  His DD Form 214 issued at the time of his discharge shows in block 16a
that his primary specialty number and title was 31M20 – Radio Relay Carrier
Attendant.

9.  A review of his official records fails to show that the applicant was
ever awarded any MOS other than 31M.

10.  Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, provided, in pertinent
part, that personnel who received reenlistment bonuses (other than a
regular reenlistment bonus) were required to be utilized in the MOS for
which they received a bonus.  All commands were required to closely monitor
the utilization of bonus recipients assigned under their control.

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 was reclassified to an RTO MOS has
been noted and found to be without merit.  He was awarded MOS 31M upon
completion of his AIT, served in Vietnam as a 31M, and returned to the
United States for assignment, after which he reenlisted for a period of 6
years in MOS 31M for a VRB.

3.  Inasmuch as bonus recipients were required to be utilized in their
bonus MOS, it is reasonable to presume that such was the case with the
applicant and his records appear to bear that out.  Accordingly, there
appears to be no basis to change his MOS.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 11 July 1971; therefore, the time for
the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 10 July 1974.  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

__PMS__  ___RDG__  __LMD__  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.




                                  _____Paul M. Smith________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001592                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060829                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |189/CORR 214                            |
|1.110.0000              |                                        |
|2.100.0500              |6/MOS                                   |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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