IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    5 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100028504 


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 Section 4 of his DA Form 24 (Service Record).

2.  The applicant states his DA Form 24, section 4 (Chronological Record of Military Service), lines 18 through 20, are in error.  He claims line 18 should show he was assigned to the 3rd Radio Research Unit (RRU), Tan Son Nhut Air Base, Saigon, Vietnam, in a temporary duty (TDY) status from 7 May 1961 through
23 September 1961, and lines 19 and 20 should be deleted.  He also states a new line 19 should start 24 September 1961 and so on for the rest of section 4.

3.  The applicant claims his DA Form 24, section 10, contains an entry showing the record was retyped on 27 September 1961 because of the unserviceable condition of the original.  He claims this is when the original Section 4, line 18, was omitted.

4.  The applicant provides copies of his original DA Form 24, a self-corrected 
DA Form 24, and a Congressional Inquiry packet.

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 initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 September 1956, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on
13 September 1959, and he reenlisted on 14 September 1959 for a period of
3 years.  He held and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 765.10 (Signal Supply Specialist) and 768.60 (General Supply Specialist).  Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) he was issued at the time shows the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Bade with Carbine Bar and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Carbine Bar.

3.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains a DA Form 24 covering the period 14 September 1956 through 13 September 1962, which was prepared and verified on 27 September 1961.  It shows the applicant served in the U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) from 12 July 1957 through 2 June 1962.  Section 4 shows that during his assignment to USARPAC, he served in the following units for the periods indicated:

* 26 July - 28 February 1959, 3rd U.S. Army Security Agency Field Station (USASAFS) 8603, APO 331
* 1 March 1959 - 6 May 1961, 3rd USASAFS, 9407, APO 331
* 7 - 11 May 1961, 176th USASAFS Company, APO 160 (TDY)
* 12 May - 23 September 1961, 3rd USASAFS, 9407, APO 331
* 24 September - 19 December 1961, U.S. Army Garrison (USAG), Torii Station, 9406-02, APO 331

4.  The record shows the applicant was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 23 May 1962, and that this is the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty.

5.  A DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) contained in the applicant’s OMPF also shows he was assigned to the 3rd USASAFS, APO 331 from 26 July 


1957 through 23 September 1961 and to the USAG, APO 331 from
24 September 1961 through 1 January 1962.

6.  On 13 September 1962, the applicant was honorably discharged, in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6, after completing 6 years of total active service.  The
DD Form 214 he was issued during this period of service shows he completed
3 years, 2 months, and 19 days of overseas service in the USARPAC.  Item 26 shows the Army Good Conduct Medal.

7.  On 7 October 2010, the applicant's application to the Board requesting correction of the DA Form 24 was returned without referral to the Board.  The reason for it being administratively closed was that he requested only correction of the DA Form 24, which is an inactive record and changes to the form were no longer made.

8.  The applicant provides a self-corrected DA Form 24 that contains handwritten added entries in section 4 that show he served in the 3rd RRU, Tan Son Nhut Air Force Base, Saigon, Vietnam, from 7 May 1961 through 23 September 1961.

9.  Army Regulations governing the maintenance of Army records, including the DA Form 24, in effect at the time provided for maintaining those records during the period a member served on active duty.  Once a member separated from active duty the record was no longer active and was no longer maintained.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to correct his DA Form 24 has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The applicant’s OMPF contains a DA Form 24 that was prepared and verified on 27 September 1961.  This record documents his active duty service from 
14 September 1956 through 13 September 1962, and shows no assignment to Vietnam.  The DA Form 24 provided by the applicant is a modified version of this same record and is not on file in the OMPF.  The OMPF also contains a DA Form 20 that mirrors the USARPAC assignments listed in the DA Form 24.

3.  Further, there are no documents or orders in the OMPF that support the applicant's assertion he was assigned to the unit in question in Vietnam during the period he indicates.  As a result, absent any evidence confirming the assignment in question, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant is further advised that the reason his application was originally returned was that he was asking for no relief other than a correction to his inactive DA Form 24.  Therefore, even if there were evidence to support his assertions, unless a correction would result in resolution of some error or injustice being served upon the applicant, or in correction to an active military record, no change would be made to a record that is no longer actively maintained and provides no effective 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)                                         AR20100028504



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100028504



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1