IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  12 November 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130005801 


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:

	a.  all of his active duty service; and

	b.  all of his personal decorations, service medals, and ribbons.

2.  The applicant states he served two tours of duty in the United States Army from November 1971 to April 1977, to include two tours of duty in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  He enlisted in the Army in Chicago, IL in November 1971 and went to basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Polk, LA.  Afterwards, he was sent to Fort Ord, CA.  He was subsequently sent to the RVN in 1972 where he reported to the 101st Airborne Division, for assignment to the T64 Motor Transport Battalion in 1972.  In December 1973, he returned to Oakland, CA for out-processing.  In April 1974, he reenlisted in the Army and was sent to Fort Benning, GA and then on to Fort Ord for assignment back to the RVN.  He went to DaNang for duty with Company B, 4th Battalion, 2nd Transportation Brigade.  He subsequently returned to Oakland, CA.  He contends that the errors in his records happened in April 1977 at Oakland Army Terminal when he was discharged or released from active duty.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 effective 30 March 1973.



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.  Records show the applicant was in Chicago, IL when he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 December 1972.  On 11 December 1972, he was assigned to Company C, 3rd Battalion, 2nd Training Brigade, Fort Polk, LA for basic combat training.

3.  On 1 February 1973, the applicant was assigned to the Special Training Company (STC) for basic combat training.

4.  On 27 February 1973, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for being absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 12 to 24 February 1973.

5.  On 5 March 1973, the applicant's commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the United States Army due to unsuitability.  He based his recommendation on the applicant's exhibiting an extreme dissatisfaction for the military setting.  Since his assignment to the STC, he had failed to develop emotionally to a point that would deserve retention in the Army.  Despite all rehabilitative attempts, the applicant had shown no improvement in attitude, performance, or desire for achievement.

6.  On 6 March 1973, at a mental status evaluation, the applicant's behavior was found to be normal.  He was fully alert and oriented but displayed a depressed mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content normal, and his memory good.  There was no significant mental illness.  The applicant was mentally responsible.  He was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and capable of participating in the separation processing.

7.  On 6 March 1973, the applicant was advised by his commander that he was being recommended for separation from the United States Army because of unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13.
8.  On 12 March 1973, the applicant consulted with counsel, and elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.  He also waived representation by counsel.

9.  On 13 March 1973, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 30 March 1973.  He completed 4 months of creditable active duty service.  He did not complete his initial training and was not awarded a military occupational specialty.

11.  The applicant's DD Form 214 indicates he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM).

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides that the National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 1 January 1961 through 14 August 1974.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) provides detailed instructions for completing separation documents, including the DD Form 214.  It provides that the DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he served on two separate periods of active duty, to include two tours of duty in the RVN and to include all awards and service ribbons appropriate for such service.

2.  The available evidence of record shows that the applicant served for a period of 4 months and was discharged due to unsuitability.  He has not provided any documentation or convincing argument to show he served during any additional period(s).  Neither has he provided any documentary evidence of any overseas service.

3.  The applicant's contention that he is due additional awards is also unsubstantiated.  

4.  In view of the above, 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)                                         AR20130005801





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130005801



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1