IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	21 July 2009  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090005077 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his military occupational specialty (MOS) from 43D (Shoe Repair).

2.  The applicant states that he was never awarded a MOS in any field.  

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, dated 28 February 2009, in support of his application.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20080009133, on
23 October 2008.

2.  The applicant submitted a self-authored statement in which he presents a new argument, which was not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant’s service records show he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 19 October 1964.  His records further show he completed basic combat training and advanced individual training at Fort Lee, VA, and was awarded MOS 43D.  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was specialist four (SP4)/E-4.

4.  The applicant’s records contain a copy of Special Orders Number 301, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry, Fort Dix, NJ, on 4 December 1964, that show he was scheduled to attend the 6-week Shoe Repair Training Course (Course Number 10-R-462.2) at Fort Lee, VA. 

5.  Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he was awarded MOS 43D on 19 February 1965.

6.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 also shows he held MOS 43D and performed duties of 43D throughout his military service.

7.  The applicant’s records further show he served in Germany from on or about 20 March 1965 to on or about 28 September 1966.  His records contain a copy of Special Orders Number 132, issued by Headquarters, 66th Ordnance Battalion, on 20 July 1965, that show he was assigned to the 546th Ordnance Company in MOS 43D.  However, item 38 of his DA Form 20 shows he was also reassigned to Company A, 66th Maintenance Battalion, on 3 August 1965, also in MOS 43D. 

8.  The applicant’s records contain a copy of Unit Orders Number 43, issued by Company A, 56th Quartermaster Battalion, on 28 June 1965, that show he was promoted to private first class (PFC)/E-3 in MOS 43L, also a Shoe Repairman.

9.  The applicant’s records also show he served in the Republic of Vietnam, from on or about 6 January 1966 to on or about 9 January 1967.  While in the Republic of Vietnam, he was assigned to the 148th Quartermaster Company.  Furthermore, his records contain a copy of Unit Orders Number 31, issued by Headquarters 148th Quartermaster Company (Direct Support), on 21 June 1966, that show he was promoted to SP4/E-4, also in MOS 43D.

10.  The applicant’s records show he was honorably released on 18 October 1967 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) for completion of his Reserve obligation.  Item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued shows the entry “43D2O Shoe Repair.” 

11.  In his self-authored statement, dated 24 February 2009, the applicant states that:

	a.  he spent six weeks restricted to the barracks awaiting orders for MOS school and that when he reported to the 56th Quartermaster Battalion he was transferred because he was told by his unit first sergeant that he did not have a MOS.  He adds that during his first assignment, he tested military personnel for their license and conducted eye exams for military members and their dependents.  He was then transferred to Germany and became a unit police (U.P.);

	b.  the evidence that he needs to support his claim is in his medical records; however, the only records he has are dental records and that the little records he received from the Army show nothing about his service in Germany or Vietnam.  He also states that while in Germany, he had two teeth knocked out.  He further states that while in Vietnam, he was in a field hospital with a fever and also suffered shrapnel wound to his stomach from a rocket or a mortar and that the doctors stitched the wound but they were unable to remove the shrapnel.  He goes on to say that he returned to Fort Lee and also had an operation in August or September 1967; and 

	c.  there must be some record somewhere that can, in effect, prove his point. He concludes that in October 2008, he spent 45 days at the Department of Veterans Administration hospital for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and that while there, the x-ray showed a small metallic density in his abdomen that could be shrapnel.  

12.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of their military service.  It is important that information entered on the form should be complete and accurate.  Chapter 2 of this Regulation contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  Item 23 of the version of the DD Form 214 in effect at the time reflects the primary specialty held at the time of separation or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his earlier request that he was not trained in MOS 43D should be reconsidered.  

2.  The applicant’s service in Germany, Vietnam, and Fort Lee, VA, is not in question.  However, the evidence of record shows the applicant was awarded MOS 43D on 19 February 1965 and he held this MOS throughout his military service at various units of assignment, including those in Germany, Vietnam, and Fort Lee.  The MOS listed on his DD Form 214 is consistent with that shown on his promotion orders and reassignments orders.  There is no evidence in the available record and the applicant did not provide any substantiating evidence that shows he was trained in a different MOS.  Therefore, the entry on his DD Form 214 is correct. 
3.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant relief in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ___X_____  ___X_____  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20080009133, dated 23 October 2008.




      _______ _   X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090005077



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090005077



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1