IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 April 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090015058 


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 correction of his records by deleting the erroneous entries that show he attended clerk typist training at Fort Sam Houston, TX in May 1964 and that he was assigned as a clerk typist in September 1965. 

2.  The applicant states he was overlooked for promotion, his military occupational specialty (MOS) was arbitrarily changed, and he was punished for marrying a white woman.  He adds he was removed from his duty station and transferred to a battery that was far away only one day after he got married.  He was placed on details for the last 6 months of his military service.  Additionally, he states: 

	a.  He was assigned to Headquarters Company, Fort Hancock, NJ, in August 1964 and immediately placed on painting detail.  One particular day after completing the detail, the acting first sergeant ordered him and two other Soldiers who were also medics to clean all of the unit's weapons.  They finished at about 0400 hours the next day.

	b.  He was then assigned to D Battery (Nike Hercules) as a medic and he sometimes had to work alone at the dispensary.

	c.  He met his future wife in December 1964 and in February 1965 he wrote to her parents telling them he wanted to marry their daughter.  Her parents then contacted their daughter's commanding officer at the hospital at Fort Monmouth, NJ.  Soon afterwards, he met her parents in a meeting with her commanding officer.  Her father told him if he ever came to his house he would shoot him.  However, they became friends years later.
   
   d.  His girlfriend became pregnant and there was a rush to separate her from the Army.  They married on 1 March 1965.  On 2 March 1965, he was moved from D Battery in Hazlet, NJ to A Battery in Old Bridge, NJ, while his wife was stationed at Fort Monmouth.  After his wife separated from the Army, they settled in Keasbey, NJ.  He was then transferred to Fort Hancock to work at the dispensary.

	e. Both medics he was assigned with were promoted to specialist four (E-4); however, he was not promoted even though one of them had less time in the military than he and the Soldier had received an Article 15.

   f.  When he asked his supervisor why he was overlooked for promotion, the noncommissioned officer (NCO) told him that Uncle Sam did not tell him to get married.  He adds that one of the other medics later told him the NCO was upset about the applicant marrying a white woman.

	g.  He wrote a letter to the Inspector General (IG) explaining what happened to him in the unit.  A couple of weeks later he was summoned to the IG's office and told he no longer would be working in the dispensary.  He was told he would be working with clerk typists; however, he was put on details for the last 
6 months of his service.

	h.  He remained married to his wife for 21 years.  He continues to suffer from his humiliating military experience.  He adds that he filed for post-traumatic stress disorder, but his claim was rejected by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence 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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 
25 February 1964.

3.  On 23 March 1964, the applicant completed a conscientious objector statement.  He declared he was opposed to participating in combatant training and service.  He also requested assignment to non-combatant duties for the remainder of the term of his service.

4.  The applicant's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows in:

	a.  Item 22 (Military Occupational Specialties) he was awarded MOS 91B2O (Medical Specialist) as his primary MOS on 3 March 1965.

	b.  Item 27 (Military Education) that he completed the 10-week Medical Corpsman course (MOS Code 910) at the U.S. Army Medical Training Command (USAMTC), Fort Sam Houston in 1964.

   c.  Item 33 (Appointments and Reductions) that he was advanced to private (E-2) on 25 June 1964, promoted to private first class (E-3) on 26 October 1964, and appointed as a private first class (E-3) in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 24 February 1966.

   d.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) shows on:

       (1)  6 March 1964, he was assigned to Basic Combat Training, Company D, 3rd Battalion, USAMTC, Fort Sam Houston.

       (2)  30 May 1964, he was assigned in duty MOS 710 (Clerk), Advanced Individual Training (AIT), Company B, 2nd Battalion, USAMTC, Fort Sam Houston.

       (3)  11 August 1964, he was assigned to the 3rd Missile Battalion,
51st Artillery, and began serving in duty MOS 9111 (Battery Aid Man).
   
       (4)  2 March 1965, he was assigned in duty MOS 91110 (Battery Aid Man) and attached to Battery A, 3rd Missile Battalion, 51st Artillery, Old Bridge.

       (5)  3 May 1965, he was assigned in duty MOS 91B2O (Battery Aid Man) and attached to Battery A, 3rd Missile Battalion, 51st Artillery, Old Bridge.
       (6)  In August 1965, he was assigned in duty MOS 71B2O (Battery Aid Man), Headquarters Battery, 3rd Missile Battalion, 51st Artillery, Fort Hancock.
   
5.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he entered active duty this period on 25 February 1964, he was honorably released from active duty on 24 February 1966, and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his Reserve obligation.  At the time he had completed 2 years of net active service.  It also shows in:

	a.  Item 3a (Grade, Rate or Rank) - "PFC E3 (P)" and in item 3b (Date of Rank) - "26 Oct 64."

	b.  Item 25a (Specialty Number and Title) - MOS 91B2O (Medical Specialist).

   c.  Item 28 (Service Schools or Colleges, College Training Courses and/or Post-Graduate Courses Successfully Completed) the Medical Corpsman course (30 May to 6 August 1964), USAMTC, Fort Sam Houston.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his records should be corrected by deleting the erroneous entries that show he attended clerk typist training at Fort Sam Houston, in May 1964 and that he was assigned as a clerk typist in September 1965.  He also contends he was reassigned as a punitive measure and that he should have been promoted to specialist four (E-4).

2.  The applicant was assigned to AIT as a medical specialist at the USAMTC, Fort Sam Houston, beginning 30 May 1964.

   a.  Item 38 of his DA Form 20 shows his duty MOS was 710 and his principal duty assignment was "Clerk AIT" at the USAMTC, Fort Sam Houston.  This entry does not indicate the applicant attended "clerk typist training."

   b.  Item 27 of his DA Form 20 shows he attended the Medical Corpsman course at the USAMTC, Fort Sam Houston, from 30 May to 6 August 1964.  Upon completion of training [emphasis added] he was awarded MOS 910 (Medical Corpsman).

   c.  Therefore, based on the foregoing, there is no basis for correcting item
38 in this instance.

3.  The applicant was assigned to Headquarters Battery, 3rd Battalion, 51st Artillery, Fort Hancock, in Duty MOS 71B2O in August 1965 until his transfer for separation processing on 23 February 1966.  The duty MOS 71B2O seems to confirm that the applicant was placed on detail for the last 6 months of his military service as he suggests.  However, this does not demonstrate that the record is in error.  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of this item.

4.  The applicant's suggestion that he was moved as a punitive measure from Battery D in Hazlet to Battery A in Old Bridge on 2 March 1965 (the day after he was married) was considered.

   a.  Records show he was attached to Battery A in Old Bridge on 2 March and assigned in duty MOS 91110; a skill level 1 duty position.

   b.  Records also show 2 months later (on 3 May 1965), while still attached to Battery A in Old Bridge, he was then assigned duties in MOS 91B2O; a skill level 2 duty position of increased responsibility.
   
   c.  Therefore, the facts surrounding this matter do not bear out the applicant's suggestion that he was reassigned as a punitive measure.

5.  The applicant's contentions that he was denied promotion to specialist four because of his inter-racial marriage and that he was equally or better qualified for promotion than two other Soldiers in the unit who were promoted was carefully considered.

	a.  Commanders select Soldiers for promotion based on them having met certain grade-specific criteria.  Whether the Soldier has demonstrated potential for increased responsibility is also considered.

	b.  The applicant provides insufficient evidence to show he was denied promotion based on his marriage.  In addition, there is insufficient evidence to show the applicant's commander erred by not selecting him for promotion.

   c.  It is noted the applicant did not indicate in his application to this Board that the IG found that he was improperly denied promotion by his company commander.
   
   d.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the applicant's contention does not appear to have merit in this case.



6.  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 has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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)                                         AR20090015058



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090015058



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1