MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:        19 November 1998     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-07747

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, 
	if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her military records be corrected to reflect her maiden name Holmes vice McFarland and that they be corrected to reflect that she was serving in the grade of sergeant at the time of her separation.  She states that her “partner fooled [her] and used [a] phony name for marriage ceremony....”  She also states, in effect, that the clerk who prepared her separation document made a mistake and indicated she was a “PFC” when in fact at the time of her discharge she was a sergeant.

PURPOSE:  To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She entered active duty under the name Holmes on 21 May 1962 and completed basic and advanced individual training at Fort McClellan, Alabama.  On 
22 September 1962 the applicant was married at the Post Chapel at Fort McClellan and on 13 November 1962, after being assigned to Fort Myer, Virginia, requested that her name be changed to McFarland.  Her request was approved and she continued to use that name for the duration of her active duty service.

On 21 January 1963 the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-3 and in March 1963 she was reassigned to Germany.  On 16 May 1963 the applicant requested voluntary separation from active duty because of pregnancy.  Her request was approved and on 10 June 1963 the applicant was released from active duty.  Her separation document indicates she was released in pay grade E-3 and there is no evidence that she was ever promoted to sergeant prior to her separation.

Correspondence contained in the applicant’s file indicates that subsequent to her separation from active duty in 1963 she may have divorced, remarried and then divorced again and is currently using her maiden name Holmes.  The Army has an obligation for historical purposes to maintain records as they were constituted at the time of creation.  The fact that the applicant’s name may have been legally changed after separation is not a basis to change service records.

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.  Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

DISCUSSION:  The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 10 June 1963, the date she was released from active duty and authenticated her separation document.  The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
10 June 1966.

The application is dated 22 January 1997 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION:  The subject application was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__FNE___  ___TAP__  __BJE___  CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION

		Loren G. Harrell
		Director