IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 September 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090007503 


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, in effect, that the military occupational specialty (MOS) shown in item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was listed as a 12B2O (Combat Engineer), but he was never trained as a 12B except in an on-the-job training status in Vietnam.  The only classroom training he had was at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, before he went to Vietnam.  He adds that he was trained in MOS 62F (Crane and Shovel Operator) and as a small arms unit armorer.  He summarizes by stating that it has been 40 years and he would just like to correct the record for his own peace of mind.

3.  The applicant submitted no additional documentary evidence in support of his request.

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 he enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 November 1966.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and his advanced individual training at Fort Leonard Wood.  After completing all required training, he was awarded MOS 62F.  He was awarded MOS 62F effective 17 March 1967 by Special Orders Number 70, prepared by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood, dated 11 March 1967.

3.  The applicant was assigned to the Overseas Replacement Station, Oakland, California, for assignment to Vietnam by Special Orders Number 171, prepared by Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Leonard Wood, dated 20 June 1967.  The MOS shown in the standard name line of these orders shows the applicant held MOS 62F as his primary MOS at the time of his reassignment to Vietnam.

4.  While in Vietnam, the applicant was promoted in MOS 12B to the rank and pay grade of specialist four, E-4, by Unit Orders Number 8, prepared by Company C, 4th Engineer Battalion (Infantry Division), 3rd Brigade Task Force, dated 12 February 1968.

5.  The applicant served in Vietnam from 21 July 1967 through 20 July 1968 with Company D, 65th Engineer Battalion, 25th Infantry Division, which was redesignated as Company C, 4th Engineer Battalion, 4th Infantry Division, on 21 August 1967.

6.  The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 8 November 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) at the expiration of his term of service.  He was separated in the rank and pay grade of specialist four, E-4.  Item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows he held MOS 12B when he was released from active duty.

7.  A review of the applicant's service personnel record revealed a copy of orders which awarded the applicant MOS 62F; however, this review failed to produce any other MOS award orders.  Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialty) of the applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he held MOS 12B (Combat Engineer) and MOS 62F as his primary MOS and secondary MOS, respectively.  This item shows MOS 62F was awarded to the applicant on 8 March 1968 and MOS 12B was awarded to the applicant on 7 March 1968.
8.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant's DA Form 20 shows he completed his advanced individual training on 16 March 1967.  On 17 March 1967, the applicant was assigned the duties of an instructor's aide in MOS 62F.  On 3 May 1967, the applicant was assigned the duty title of armorer in MOS 76K (General Supply Specialist).

9.  Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management System), chapter 2, then in effect, provided that on promotion in an MOS other than a Soldier's primary MOS, that MOS would be awarded as the Soldier's primary MOS and, if applicable, the old primary MOS would be awarded as the Soldier's secondary MOS concurrent with award of a new primary MOS.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing 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.  The regulation states that the Soldier's primary MOS code number and title will be entered in item 23a.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that at the time the applicant was assigned to Vietnam he held MOS 62F.  He was promoted in MOS 12B and on his release from active duty, he held this MOS as his primary MOS and MOS 62F as his secondary MOS.

2.  Notwithstanding the absence of orders redesignating MOS 62F as his secondary MOS and orders awarding MOS 12B as his primary MOS, administrative regularity must be presumed in the MOS reclassification process.  The evidence is clear that the applicant was promoted to the rank and pay grade of specialist four, E-4, in MOS 12B.  In accordance with the regulation then in effect, he was required to be reclassified into the MOS in which he was promoted.

3.  Based on the evidence, the applicant is not entitled to a change to the MOS now shown in item 23a of his DD Form 214.



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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20090007503



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090007503



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1