RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  17 April 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060014713 


	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

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John T. Meixell

Chairperson

Mr. Thomas M. Ray

Member

Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau

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 his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (D Form 214), issued on 31 December 1986, to show his date entered on active duty this period as 16 July 1962.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served for more than 24 years, without a break, and is not asking too much to have his record correct.  He contends that the date in Item 12a (Date Entered Active Duty This Period) of his DD Form 214 should read 16 July 1962.  He further states that he discovered this error when submitting paperwork to the Social Security Administration.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 31 December 1986, the date of his retirement.  The application submitted in this case is dated 30 September 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.  On 16 July 1962, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed his initial training and continued to serve on active duty through a series of reenlistments until his retirement on 31 December 1986.  He attained the rank of master sergeant, pay grade E8, and had completed 24 years, 
5 months, and 15 days of creditable active duty.

4.  On 3 September 1964, the applicant was issued a DD Form 214 showing his active duty from 16 July 1962 to 3 September 1964.  He had no prior service at that time. 

5.  On 3 September 1964, the applicant immediately reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 6 years.  On 2 September 1970, he was discharged and issued a DD Form 214 showing this active duty service.
6.  On 3 September 1970, the applicant immediately reenlisted in the Regular Army and continued to serve until his discharge on 13 June 1973, when he was issued a DD Form 214 that reflects this period of active duty. 

7.  On 14 June 1973, the applicant immediately reenlisted in the Regular Army and continued to serve until his discharge on 20 May 1976.  He was issued a DD Form 214 that reflects this period of service.  

8.  On 21 May 1976, the applicant again reenlisted in the Regular Army and continued to serve until his retirement for length of service on 31 December 1986.  He was issued a DD Form 214 that reflects this period of service.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) provides, in pertinent part, for the issue of a DD Form 214 to Soldiers being released or discharged from active duty.  The DD form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his last DD Form 214 is incorrect because it does not account for his entire period of active duty service is found to be without merit.  In the applicant's case, he was issued a separate DD Form 214 for each of his five periods of active duty, as required by regulation.  There are no regulatory provisions authorizing the combining of his entire active duty service onto a single DD Form 214.

2.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should not be granted.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 31 December 1986; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
30 December 1989.  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

__TMR __  __RMN__  _JTM  __  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.




__     John T. Meixell______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060014713
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20070417
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
 
DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
  . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
110.0100
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.