RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	25 January 2008  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011482 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Phyllis B. Mackey 

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. David K. Haasenritter 

Chairperson

Mr. James Hastie

Member

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

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, to have the military occupational specialty (MOS) shown on her DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, changed from 71B, Clerk Typist, to 91E, Dental Assistant.  In addition, she requests, in effect, that her rank which was taken from her, be restored as well as any pay and allowances, she would have otherwise been entitled to. 
 
2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the DD Form 214 shows the wrong MOS.  It should show the MOS, 91E, Dental Assistant, instead of the recorded MOS, 71B, Clerk Typist.  She also states, in effect, that she was reduced in rank because she allegedly disrespected a commissioned officer, when he asked her to have sex and she replied by telling him, “no,”  because he had a wife and he should go home to his wife.  She states, in effect, that there was no disrespect in stating the truth. 

3.  The applicant provides no additional supporting documentation with her application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2. The applicant's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 February 1969.  She successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training at Fort McClellan, Alabama.  On completion of this training, she was awarded the MOS, 71B, Clerk Typist.

3.  Item 23a, of the applicant’s DD Form 214, shows that on the day of her release from active duty, she held the MOS, 71B as her primary MOS. 

4.  The evidence shows the applicant completed subcourse 083-7 (Administration of the Dental Service I) on 4 April 1972.  There is no evidence in her service record to show she completed a correspondence course for dental assisting.  There is no evidence the applicant completed a course of instruction on either a resident or correspondence or on-the-job training mode to merit an entry in Item 27 (Military Education), of her DA Form 20, Enlisted Qualification Record.

5.  In accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-5, Paragraph 52, the primary MOS code number and title should be entered in “Items 23a and b.”  Also, if the specialty represented by the MOS has a related civilian occupation, the appropriate job title and code from the dictionary of occupational tittles should be entered in item 23b.  If not applicable, “NA” should be entered. 

6.  There are no orders in the applicant’s military records to show that she was reclassified to the MOS, 91E.   There is no entry in item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties) of her DA Form 20, to show she was awarded the MOS, 91E as either a primary or as a secondary MOS.

7.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has provided none to substantiate her accusation that she was sexually insulted, (sic, sexually harassed), by an officer of the United States Army while she was on active duty.  

8.  There is no evidence to show that she was reduced in rank based on actions pertaining to this accusation.

9.  On 3 April 1972 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go to her appointed place of duty and for being derelict in performance of her duty, on 14 February 1972.  The imposed punishment was reduction in rank to Private First Class, with an effective date of 15 February 1972.

10.  On 13 June 1972, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for   Misconduct.  The imposed punishment was reduction to Private E2, with an effective date of 17 May 1972.

11.   The applicant has not provided any documentation to support the fact that the imposed punishment was unjust or in error and that she was unjustly reduced in rank and pay grade.  The rank in which she was discharge and is shown on her DD Form 214 appears to be correct.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant received advanced individual training in MOS 71B and was awarded that MOS.  There is no evidence, and the applicant provided none to show she was awarded the MOS 91E (Dental Assistant).

2.  The evidence of record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214. 

3.   The applicant authenticated this document with her signature on the date of her separation.  In effect, her signature is her verification that the information contained on the separation document, to include the MOS shown, was correct at the time the DD Form 214 was prepared and issued.  

4.  At the time of the applicant’s release from active duty, the appropriate title for her MOS (71B) was “Clerk Typist”, which makes the entry in item 23a of her DD Form 214 correct.

5.  There is no evidence and the applicant has provided none to substantiate her accusation that she was sexually insulted, (sic, sexually harassed), by an officer of the United States Army while she was on active duty and that she was reduced in rank based on her conduct being disrespectful, as she alleges, in response to this accusation.  

6.  The applicant received an Article 15 on 3 April 1972 and another one on
13 June 1972.  She was reduced in rank from Specialist Four to Private First Class and then to Private E-2, for misconduct. 

7.  There is no evidence and the applicant has provided none to support the fact that the imposed punishment was unjust or in error.  Based on the evidence found in her records, the applicant is not entitled to back pay.  

8.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JH___  ___DH___  ___EM___ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





_____David K. Haasenritter _______
          CHAIRPERSON
















INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011482
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20080125
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
133
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.