RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 January 2008
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011828


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Frank C. Jones                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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 Item 16a (Primary Specialty
Number and Title) of his 31 March 1972 separation document (DD Form 214) be
corrected.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that Item 16a should show that he held
the primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) of 71H (Personnel
Specialist).

3.  The applicant provides a copy of an extract of his Enlisted
Qualification Record (DA Form 20) in support of his 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 that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 30 June 1971.  He successfully completed basic
combat training at Fort Ord, California, and was assigned to Fort Knox,
Kentucky, to attend advanced individual training (AIT) in MOS 71B (Clerk
Typist).

3.  Item 27 (Military Education) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows that
he completed the 8-week Clerk-Typist MOS 71B course at Fort Knox, Kentucky,
in 1971, and Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialty) shows he was awarded
the PMOS of 71B on 7 December 1971.  Item 22 gives no indication that he
was ever awarded another MOS during his active duty tenure.  Item 38
(Record of Assignments) shows that while assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky,
the applicant was assigned to a MOS 71H position on 28 January 1972, just
over two months prior to his separation.

4.  The applicant's Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no
orders or other documents that show he was ever awarded MOS 71H by proper
authority during his active duty tenure.

5.  On 31 March 1972, the applicant was separated under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of Unsuitability (Character and Behavior
Disorder), and received a general, under honorable conditions discharge
(GD).  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he held the rank of private
first class and that he had completed a total of 9 months and 1 day of
active military service.  Item 16a contains an entry confirming he held the
PMOS of 71B at the time of his separation.  The applicant authenticated the
separation document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person
Being Transferred or Discharged) on the date of his separation.

6.  On 14 July 1978, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to
upgrade the applicant's discharge from a GD to a fully honorable discharge
(HD), and he was issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting this change.  The
entry in Item 16a on the newly issued separation document remained the same
as the entry on the original DD Form 214.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation
documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge,
release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It also
establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form
214.  The version of the regulation in effect at the time of the
applicant's discharge stated that the entry in Item 16a would be the
primary MOS held by the member on the date of separation as recorded in
Item 22 of the DA Form 20.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that Item 16a of his DD Form 214 should be
corrected to reflect he held the PMOS 71H (Personnel Specialist) was
carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support
this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was awarded the PMOS of
71B on 7 December 1971, and that he held this MOS throughout his tenure on
active duty.  Although the applicant worked in a MOS 71H position for a
short period just prior to his discharge, performing duty in a particular
MOS alone is not a basis for reclassification into that MOS.  There is no
evidence that the applicant was ever awarded MOS 71H by proper authority
while serving on active duty and further, given the short duration of his
service in that MOS, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to award it
to him at this late date.
3.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___FCJ _  __LMD __  __MJF __  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.




                                  _____Frank C. Jones_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070011828                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/01/08                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1972/03/31                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0500                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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