RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  27 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011776 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Ms. Wanda L. Waller

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Kenneth Wright

Chairperson

Mr. Chester Damian

Member

Ms. Ernestine Fields

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 item 3a (Grade, Rate or Rank) on his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to show specialist four/pay grade E-4.  He also requests, in effect, that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show he completed 6 months of active duty.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was promoted to E-4, that he attended noncommissioned officer training and graduated prior to going on active duty, and that during the Cuban Crisis his unit was the only Combat Ready Army Division of 5000 troops.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged errors which occurred on 
15 December 1961.  The application submitted in this case is dated 11 August 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.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 18 May 1960 for a period of 8 years.  His enlistment contract showed he was required to enter on 6 months of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) on or about 20 June 1960.  Records show he was promoted to private/pay grade E-2 on 18 September 1960 and promoted to private first class/pay grade E-3 on 26 April 1961.

4.  The applicant was ordered to active duty on 24 June 1961.  His active duty orders show an effective date of 25 June 1961, a return home date no later than 24 December 1961, and his rank was private/pay grade E-2.  They also show that listed Reservists currently serving in the USAR in a grade higher than private/pay grade E-2 were reduced in grade to private/pay grade E-2 without prejudice.  On 15 December 1961, the applicant was released from active duty in the rank of private/pay grade E-2 after completing 5 months and 22 days of active duty.  He returned to the USAR to complete his remaining service obligation of 6 years, 5 months, and 2 days.

5.  Orders, dated 29 December 1961, show the applicant was restored to his former grade of private first class/pay grade E-3 effective 15 December 1961.  

6.  Item 3a on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry, “PVT E-2 (P)” [Private E-2 (Permanent)].  Item 24a(1) Net service This Period) on his DD From 214 shows he served 5 months and 22 days.  Item 32 (Remarks) on his DD Form 214 shows he completed 6 months ACDUTRA.

7.  Orders show the applicant was promoted to specialist four in the USAR effective 8 October 1963.  On 31 January 1965, the applicant was transferred to the U.S. Army Control Group (Standby). 

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The DD Form 214 is a "snapshot in time" and is a reflection of the applicant's record of active Army service at the time of his separation from active duty.  Since the applicant was promoted to specialist four/pay grade E-4 in the USAR in 1963, almost two years after his release from active duty, there is no basis for amending item 3a on his DD Form 214 to show his rank as specialist four/pay grade E-4.

2.  After serving 5 months and 22 days of active duty, the applicant was released from active duty effective 15 December 1961.  Items 24a(1) and 28 on his DD Form 214 are correct.  The Army effectively credited him with completing his 6 months ACDUTRA obligation to the time actually served when he was released.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to amend item 24a(1) on his DD Form 214 to show he completed 6 months of active duty service.     

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged errors now under consideration on 15 December 1961; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 14 December 1964.  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

KW_____  __CD___  __EF___  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.




___Kenneth Wright_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060011776
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070327
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
129.0500
2.
113.0000
3.

4.

5.

6.