Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025258
Original file (20100025258.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100025258 


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 removal of the entry, "SUBJECT TO ACTIVE DUTY RECALL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY" from his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states he retired from the U.S. Army after completing more than 20 years of active service and he has been assigned a 70 percent (%) disability rating percentage by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

   a.  He states current Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) samples to be kept for 50 years.

   b.  He has learned that the only way for him to get a confirmed destruction of his DNA sample held on file at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) is by removing the [above referenced] statement from item 18 (Remarks) of his
DD Form 214.  He adds that it is his DNA sample, not the property of the U.S. Government, and he wants it destroyed.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his VA disability rating.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army in military occupational specialty 18E (Special Forces Communications Sergeant).  He was promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 on 1 April 2001.


2.  The applicant was honorably retired on 31 October 2009 based on sufficient service for retirement and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Retired).  His DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 October 2009 shows:

   a.  he completed 20 years, 5 months, and 5 days of creditable active service.

	b.  in Item 18 the entry, "SUBJECT TO ACTIVE DUTY RECALL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY."

3.  In support of his request the applicant provides a copy of a VA Regional Office, San Diego, CA, letter, dated 3 February 2010, and VA Rating Decision, dated 27 January 2010, that show the VA assigned the applicant an overall or combined rating of 70% for service-connected conditions related to his military service.

4.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  Chapter 2, paragraph 2-4, contains item-by-item instructions for completing the DD Form 214.  It states for Item 18, use this block for entries required by Headquarters, Department of the Army, for which a separate block is not available and for completing entries too long for their blocks.  It also states, in pertinent part, for a Soldier retiring for length of service, enter "SUBJECT TO ACTIVE DUTY RECALL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY."

5.  DoD Instruction Number 5154.30 (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Operations), dated 18 March 2003, implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the administration and management of the AFIP.  Enclosure E2 (The AFME [Armed Forces Medical Examiner] System) shows the AFIP shall support the AFME System subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (ASD(HA)), including operations governed by Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1471, and other applicable authorities.  It states:

	a.  The Armed Forces Repository of Specimen Samples for the Identification of Remains (AFRSSIR) shall store biological reference specimens suitable for DNA analysis, as necessary for human remains identification, and maintain an automated indexing system to assist in the retrieval of those specimens.

	b.  The AFRSSIR shall implement special rules and procedures to ensure the protection of privacy interests in the specimen samples and any DNA analysis of those samples.
	c.  A routine destruction schedule shall be followed, under which samples shall be retained for not more than 50 years.  The AFIP shall establish and maintain a procedure under which individual specimen samples shall be destroyed at the request of the donor following the conclusion by the donor of complete military service or other applicable relationship to the DoD.  (Complete military service is not limited to active duty service; it includes all service as a member of the Selected Reserve, the Individual Ready Reserve, the Standby Reserve, the Retired Reserve, or the Retired Regular Permanent.)  On receipt of such a request, the AFIP has 180 days to destroy the sample and send notification to the donor.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his DD Form 214 should be corrected by removing the entry, "SUBJECT TO ACTIVE DUTY RECALL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY" because he wants the AFIP to destroy his DNA specimen sample.

2.  Records show the applicant retired from active duty after completing more than 20 years of total active service and he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired).

3.  The governing Army regulation states that for a Soldier retiring for length of service enter, "SUBJECT TO ACTIVE DUTY RECALL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY" in item 18 of the DD Form 214.  Thus, the entry in item 18 is correct.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20100025258



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100025258



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1996-00259A

    Original file (BC-1996-00259A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant’s counsel reviewed the evaluations and states that a perfectly decent laboratory says the specimen is tainted and the Air Force says the results are inconclusive. The results did not conclusively demonstrate that there was no match between the specimen and the collected DNA sample from the applicant. The AFIP/CME-DNA evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012512

    Original file (20070012512.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, his command did not take any action to have him medically discharged. The governing regulation does not require that the company commander request that the battalion commander impose the Article 15. In this case, there is no evidence to show that the applicant used Valium.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010264

    Original file (20130010264.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Both Soldiers admitted their marijuana use to other enlisted Soldiers before the tests came back. Because of poor sample keeping and shipping procedures at Fort Meade he is unable to prove through DNA testing that the urine sample which tested positive for marijuana does not belong to him. It states that applications for removal of an Article 15 from the AMHRR based on an error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100011836

    Original file (20100011836.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was medically retired due to physical disability. He completed the required years of qualifying service for retirement on 8 September 2009 with a retirement date of 1 October 2009. There is no evidence the applicant was issued a notice of eligibility for retired pay at age 60. c. Therefore, there is no basis for correcting the applicant's military service records to show he completed 15 qualifying years of service on 8 September...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500289

    Original file (ND1500289.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The majority of board members at the NDRB view this as a validation of the presumption of regularity in the findings resulting from the Applicant’s sample as urinalysis specimens arriving at a Navy Drug Screening Laboratory (NDSL) are inspected for container damage or evidence of tampering, with particular attention to the condition of the box seals, which should be intact with the command’s Urinalysis Program Coordinator’s signature printed across the taped box seams. Summary: After a...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401585

    Original file (MD1401585.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read: "MISCONDUCT" The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded...

  • USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1500724

    Original file (MD1500724.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS and the narrative reason for separation shall remain MISCONDUCT. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has...

  • USMC | DRB | 2012_Marine | MD1200717

    Original file (MD1200717.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401743

    Original file (ND1401743.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011781

    Original file (20080011781.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Counsel contends that the applicant subsequently retained the services of a North Carolina attorney to assist him in filing a request for reconsideration based on new evidence (that both urine specimens were collected on 12 August 1985 rather than on two separate dates as discussed by the ABCMR). On 24 October 1985, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (drug abuse). Evidence of record shows the...