RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013833 


	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:


Ms. Linda Simmons

Chairperson

Mr. Jerome Pionk

Member

Mr. Eddie Smoot

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, in effect, that items 6a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 6b (Pay Grade) on her DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) be corrected to show private first class/pay grade E-3 instead of private/pay grade E-1.  She also requests, in effect, that her narrative reason for separation be changed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there is no record that she completed a trainee program in the Women’s Army Corps (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC)) in 1973.

3.  The applicant provides a New Jersey PROMIS/GAVEL Statewide Defendant Name List; a letter, dated 11 September 2006, from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri; and a copy of her DD Form 214.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged errors which occurred on 
6 March 1975.  The application submitted in this case is dated 28 July 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 on 9 December 1974 for a period of 3 years under the delayed entry program.  On 20 January 1975, she enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.

4.  While in basic combat training, records show the applicant was counseled on 29 January 1975 for being too aggressive with her peers, use of tact, control of the mouth, and the bad habit of “bossing” other trainees around.  On 9 February 1975, the applicant was counseled for talking back to a superior noncommissioned officer, her declining performance and personal inspections, and not getting along with her peers.  On 25 February 1975, the applicant was counseled on all her problem areas which included being disrespectful to senior noncommissioned officers, showing an inability to work and cooperate with peers, exhibiting substandard results on inspection, poor attitude, and she was notified of Article 15 proceedings for allegedly possessing marijuana.    

5.  On 28 February 1975, the applicant was notified of her pending separation under the provisions of Department of the Army (DA) Message DAPE-MPE 011510Z August 1973 Subject:  Evaluation and Discharge of Enlistees Before 180 Active Duty Days (i.e. Trainee Discharge Program).  The unit commander based her recommendation for separation on the applicant’s bad attitude and inability to work with her peers which created a disruptive influence in the platoon.

6.  On 28 February 1975, the applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged notification of her proposed honorable discharge from the Army, and elected not to make a statement on her behalf.

7.  On March 3, 1975, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed that the applicant be furnished an honorable discharge.   

8.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 6 March 1975 with an honorable discharge under the provisions of DA Message DAPE-MPE 011510Z August 1973.  She had completed 1 month and 17 days of creditable service. 

9.  Item 6a on the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry “PV1.”  Item 6b on her DD Form 214 shows the entry, “E1.”  Item 9c (Authority and Reason) on her DD Form 214 shows the entry, "DA MSG [Message] DAPE-MPE 011510Z AUG [August] 73 [1973] SPD [Separation Program Designator] JNF."  

10.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was promoted to E-3 prior to her discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation, in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JNF” is “Miscellaneous-General (Trainee Discharge Program)” and the regulatory authority is DA Message DAPE-MPE 011501Z Aug 1973.  

12.  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.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant was promoted to 
E-3 prior to her discharge.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence on which to amend items 6a and 6b on her DD Form 214.     

2.  The narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.  

3.  There is no evidence of record that the applicant completed a Women’s Army Corps ROTC program.  In any case, it would have been outside the period of her DD Form 214.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged errors now under consideration on 6 March 1975; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 5 March 1978.  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

LS_____  __JP____  _ES_____  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.



__Linda Simmons_______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060013833
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
200070508
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
129.0000
2.
110.0200
3.

4.

5.

6.