BOARD DATE:	    2 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110013715 


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 that he:

* was discharged in the rank/grade of specialist four/E-4
* entered active duty in “September 1971”
* completed basic combat training (BCT) at Fort Ord, California
* completed advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma
* was injured in Vietnam

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was discharged on 4 July 1973 in Oakland, CA and he received no paperwork.  He signed a form and he was told it was a holiday; he could stay there or find a ride home.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 January 1972, in pay grade E-1.  His records show he completed BCT at Fort Ord, California and AIT at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  He was promoted to pay grade E-2 on 15 May 1972.  He arrived in Hawaii on 18 June 1972.

3.  The applicant’s record shows he was counseled on 17 separate occasions between 3 August 1972 and 24 May 1973 for the following offenses:

* speeding
* falling asleep in a friend's room
* failure to perform an assigned mission
* losing his driver's license for reckless driving
* failure to replace a muffler on his motorcycle
* fighting
* unsatisfactory performance on the howitzer
* a poor military appearance
* failure to meet his responsibility
* repeatedly going to sick call
* failure to have his field gear
* failure to have his name tag on his uniform
* a poor attitude and performance of duty

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 23 August 1972 for being absent from his unit.

5.  On 15 February 1973, the applicant acknowledged that he had been counseled regarding denial of his promotion from pay grade E-2 to pay grade 
E-3.  He acknowledged that he understood he had failed to maintain the proper military appearance.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he lacked the military bearing necessary to be a satisfactory Soldier and that if his deficient areas were not corrected it could lead to a discharge under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).


6.  On 24 May 1973, the applicant was recommended for separation under the extension of the QMP.  His commander cited 17 counselings, apathy, a lack of self-discipline, and his military bearing as the basis for the recommendation for separation.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on 21 June 1973 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

8.  The applicant departed Hawaii en-route to the U.S. on 2 July 1973.  He was discharged on 4 July 1973 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, the QMP.

9.  The DD Form 214 that he signed at the time of discharge shows the following:

* his pay grade was private (E-2)
* his date of entry was 31 January 1972
* he completed Field Artillery Basic in military occupational specialty 13A1O at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, 8 weeks, in 1972

10.  The applicant’s record does not show he ever served and was injured in Vietnam while he was in the Army.

11.  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.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

12.  The version of Army Regulation 635-5 in effect at the time states in item 25 (Education and Training Completed) enter installation training courses (qualification courses), military correspondence courses, and off-duty courses the enlisted person completed successfully during the period covered by the 
DD Form 214 being prepared.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, they are not substantiated by the evidence of record.

2.  There is no evidence in the available record that shows he enlisted in the RA in September 1971 or that he was ever promoted to specialist four/E-4.  His record shows he enlisted in the RA on 31 January 1972 and he was promoted to private E-2 on 15 May 1972.  His rank, pay grade, and date of entry are properly shown on his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214 already shows he completed AIT.  The applicable regulation provides that installation training courses (qualification courses), military correspondence courses, and off-duty courses the enlisted person completed successfully during the period covered by the DD Form 214 being prepared will be entered in item 25.  The applicant's BCT is properly not shown on his DD Form 214 because it is not a qualification course.

4.  There is no evidence in the available record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence, showing he served in Vietnam while he was in the Army.  Therefore, this information is properly not shown on his DD Form 214.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20110013715



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110013715



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1