IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 September 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110005015 


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 DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show Hinsdale, Massachusetts, as his home of record (HOR) at the time he entered active duty.

2.  The applicant states the address recorded as his HOR on his DD Form 214 was an address he was visiting at the time of his enlistment in the Army, not his legal address.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and a letter from a Veterans Service Officer (VSO) 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's complete military service records are not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant's records were lost or destroyed in that fire.  However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case.

3.  Special Orders Number 225, dated 4 December 1958, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Chemical Corps Proving Ground, Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, released the applicant from active duty (REFRAD) effective 15 December 1958.  These orders also show:

* HOR:  XXX P____ Street, Pittsfield, Massachusetts
* Permanent address following transfer:  Box X, Windsor, Massachusetts

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty on 3 January 1956, was honorably REFRAD on 15 December 1958, and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve to complete his remaining Reserve obligation.  He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 13 days of net active service.  It shows in:

	a.  item 5 (Place of Birth), "Pittsfield, Massachusetts";

	b.  item 23 (HOR at Time of Entry into Active Service), "XXX P____ Street, Pittsfield (Berkshire), Massachusetts";

	c.  item 33 (Permanent Address for Mailing Purposes After Transfer or Discharge), "Box X#, Windsor (Berkshire), Massachusetts"; and

	d.  item 34 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged) that the applicant placed his signature on the document.

5.  The applicant provides a letter from Mr. P____ C____, VSO, Town of Hinsdale, Berkshire County, Hinsdale, Massachusetts, dated 5 March 2011.  He states the applicant was born a resident of Hinsdale, Massachusetts, and he grew up there.  Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is listed as his place of birth because that is where the area hospital is located.

	a.  When the applicant was 19 years old he lived with his uncle in Pittsfield for 3 weeks and the applicant provided that address to the recruiter when he enlisted in the Army.  However, his legal address was Hinsdale.

	b.  The VSO adds that he is compiling a list of names of individuals from Hinsdale who served in the Korean and Vietnam wars.  He must rely on the HOR recorded on the DD Form 214 in compiling the list and the applicant should be on this list.

6.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations – Administrative Separation Procedures and Forms), in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures regarding separation documents.  It also established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Appendix III (Instructions for Preparation and Distribution of the Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states that all available records will be used as a basis for the preparation of the DD Form 214, including the Service Record, Enlisted Qualification Record, Officer Qualification Record, and orders.  The instructions show for:

	a.  item 5 – "self-explanatory" and

	b.  item 23 – for enlisted personnel, enter HOR at time of entry into active duty as shown on enlistment or induction record regardless of place physically located at the time of entry on active duty.

7.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  This regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The regulatory guidance for entering the HOR on the DD Form 214 at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty was clear.  The instructions were to enter the HOR at the time of entry into active duty as shown on the enlistment or induction record.

2.  The evidence of record shows that special orders issued at the time the applicant was REFRAD confirmed his HOR upon entry into active duty was Pittsfield, Massachusetts.  Accordingly, that HOR was recorded in item 23 of his DD Form 214.  In addition, the applicant affirmed with his signature on the DD Form 214 that Pittsfield, Massachusetts, was his HOR.

3.  There is a presumption of administrative regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption can be applied to any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant fails to provide such evidence.  The available evidence does not show the Army misapplied the governing regulatory guidance concerning the applicant's HOR.  Thus, the entry in item 23 of the applicant's DD Form 214 is presumed correct.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his records 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 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)                                         AR20110005015



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110005015



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1