IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    11 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110006838 


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 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his home of record (HOR) as Pennsylvania instead of Connecticut and to show the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

2.  The applicant states the HOR shown on his DD Form 214 for the period ending May 1983 (Connecticut) is correct for his DD Form 214 for the period ending September 1955.   He relocated to Pennsylvania in 1955 where he graduated from college and again upon his retirement and remained a resident of that state throughout his post-retirement period.  He contends that the error occurred as a carry-over from his enlisted DD Form 214 and he did not realize it until after retirement.  Having lived in Pennsylvania all these years, he is entitled to a stipend because he is legally blind but, as it stands, he cannot receive it due to the error on his DD Form 214.  He also states that he received the Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM) at his retirement ceremony but was told that it was to be upgraded to an MSM.  The upgrade happened after retirement.

3.  The applicant provides DD Forms 214 for the periods ending 19 February 1955 and 31 May 1983, retirement orders, ARCOM orders, revocation orders, and MSM orders.

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.  After having had prior enlisted service in the Regular Army and in the U.S. Army Reserve, the applicant was appointed a Reserve commissioned officer on 15 July 1963.  The DA Form 71 (Oath of Office - Military Personnel) was prepared at Dallas, Texas.

3.  Letter Order Number A-04-218, dated 27 April 1965, ordered him to active duty with a report date of 3 July 1965.  This letter order shows his HOR as Dallas, Texas.

4.  Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade Permanent Orders Number 85-1, dated 20 May 1983, awarded him the ARCOM (third award) for meritorious service during the period 30 May 1979 to 31 May 1983.

5.  Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade, Orders Number 68-67, dated 7 April 1983, directed his reassignment for separation processing purposes.  These orders show his HOR as Dallas, Texas.

6.  On 31 May 1983, he was retired for length of service after serving 17 years, 10 months, and 28 days of continuous active duty service.  He had completed 
2 years, 2 months, and 9 days of prior enlisted active duty service.  Item 6 (Place of Entry into Active Duty [not HOR]) of his DD Form 214 shows Hartford, Connecticut.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) includes the ARCOM with third oak leaf cluster (third award) but does not include the MSM.

7.  Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade, Permanent Orders Number 48-4, dated 1 June 1983, revoked Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade Permanent Orders Number 85-1, dated 20 May 1983.


8.  Headquarters, Fort George G. Meade, Permanent Orders Number 48-4, dated 1 June 1983, awarded him the MSM for meritorious service during the period 30 March 1979 to 31 May 1983.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  The regulation and the version of the DD Form 214 in effect at time of the applicant's retirement did not provide for an entry identifying the HOR.  The regulation currently in effect states that the street, city, state, and zip code listed as a Soldier's HOR would be entered in block 7b on the DD Form 214.  HOR is the place recorded as the HOR of the Soldier when commissioned, appointed, enlisted, or ordered to a tour of active duty.  This cannot be changed unless there is a break in service of at least one full day.  HOR is not always the same as the legal domicile as defined for income tax purposes.  Legal domicile may change during a Soldier's career.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show his HOR as Pennsylvania and to show the MSM has been carefully reviewed.

2.  He was awarded the third award of the ARCOM prior to his retirement.  Subsequently, the ARCOM orders were revoked and he was awarded the MSM; however, the ARCOM revocation and award of the MSM were accomplished after his DD Form 214 was completed and issued.  As a result, his DD Form 214 incorrectly shows the third award of the ARCOM instead of the MSM.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 May 1983 should be corrected to show the MSM instead of the third award of the ARCOM.

3.  His active duty orders show his HOR as Dallas, Texas.  There is no evidence indicating that the HOR at the time of his entry on active duty on 3 July 1965 was Pennsylvania.  The DD Form 214 and the governing regulation in effect at the time of his retirement did not provide for an entry identifying the HOR.  Even if there was such an entry, his request still could not be granted due to the fact that the documented HOR in his records is Dallas, Texas.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant this portion of his request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ___X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by deleting from item 13 of his DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 May 1983 the Army Commendation Medal with third oak leaf cluster and adding the Meritorious Service Medal.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correcting his records to show his HOR as Pennsylvania.  




      __________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)                                         AR20110006838



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006838



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1