PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            26 May 1999       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019849

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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. Mark D. Manning 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his 1994 separation document be corrected to reflect that he was separated in pay grade E-4 with a date of rank of 9 January 1992, that he successfully completed the combat lifesaver course in 1994, and that he served for 1 year and 14 months as a heavy anti-armor weapons infantryman (specialty 11H).  He also asks that the document be corrected to reflect that he was awarded two Army Achievement Medals.  In support of his application he submits copies of orders awarding him the two Army Achievement Medals, a completion certificate for the combat lifesaver course and documents indicating he was promoted to pay grade E-4 effective 9 January 1992 as well as documents indicating he enlisted in that grade in 1993.

3.  Several attempts to locate copies of the applicant’s official military personnel file have been unsuccessful.  Information contained here in was reconstructed based on the documents submitted with the applicant’s application.

4.  His reconstructed records indicate he served an initial period of active duty between 1989 and 1990 and was subsequently a member of a Reserve component until 18 August 1993 when he reenlisted in the Regular Army.

5.  In July 1991, while a member of the USAR assigned to the 40th Armor in Tucson, Arizona, the applicant was awarded his first Army Achievement Medal. On 9 January 1992, while a member of that same unit, the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-4.

6.  Documents provided by the applicant indicate he was reenlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-4 on 18 August 1993 and successfully completed a 40 hours combat lifesavers course at Fort Carson, Colorado in January 1994.  He was awarded his second Army Achievement Medal in March 1994 as a result of his meritorious achievement during the period 20 through 28 February 1994.

7.  The 4th Personnel Service Company issued orders assigning the applicant to the Army Transition Point at Fort Carson, Colorado on 15 July 1994.  Those orders indicate the applicant was serving in pay grade E-4.  Missing for the applicant’s documentation is the actual separation order, which would have been issued by the transition point after reviewing his military personnel file and during the preparation of his DD Form 214.

8.  On 22 July 1994, just 11 months after his reenlistment he was voluntarily released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b/c.  His separation document, which he authenticated, indicates that he was separated in pay grade E-3 and that his date of rank as an E-3 was 
20 May 1994.  The document also indicates that he performed duties as a heavy anti-armor weapons infantryman (specialty 11H) for the entire 11 months of his enlistment.

9.  Item 13 (awards and decorations) does not reflect entitlement to any Army Achievement Medal and item 14 (military training) reflects “NONE.”

10.  On 11 March 1997 the applicant enlisted in the Colorado Army National Guard for a period of 3 years.  His enlistment document indicates he was allowed to enlist in pay grade E-4 for duty as a military policeman (specialty 95B).

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b provides for the early separation of soldiers who have been denied reenlistment via a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  The paragraph states that “soldiers who perceive they will be unable to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment may apply for immediate discharge.  Sub-paragraph c of that paragraph merely states that the fact that a soldier may be requesting voluntary separation because of bar to reenlistment does not preclude involuntarily separating that soldier under other provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the policies and procedures for the completion and distribution of the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part it states that, with the exception of awards information, the 214 is intended to capture specific information related to the period of service covered by the separation document.

13.  Item 11 (primary specialty) reflects the specialties that an individual was assigned during the period of service captured on the DD Form 214.  Item 13 (awards and decorations) should reflect all awards and decorations the individual is entitled to, regardless of the period of service during which the awards were received.  Item 14 (military education) will list formal in service training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed.  This information is to assist the soldier after separation in job placement and counseling; therefore, training courses for combat skills are not listed.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms the applicant was awarded two Army Achievement Medals, which should be reflected in item 13 of his 1994 DD Form 214.

2.  Although the combat lifesavers course could be interpreted as enhancing combat skills the Board contends that rescue and first aid skills learned during the training would be applicable to any water rescue situation, as such it would be appropriate to reflect completion of the training on the applicant’s DD Form 214.

3.  While the applicant may have performed duties as an 11H during an earlier period of service his 1994 DD Form 214 would only reflect the amount of time he served in that specialty during the period of service covered by the 1994 document.  In this case the DD Form 214 covers the 11 month period between August 1993 and July 1994 and item 11 accurately reflects that he served in specialty 11H during that 11 month period.  Previous service in that specialty would have been captured on an earlier separation document.

4.  The applicant’s separation document indicates he was administratively separated from the military under regulatory provisions which allowed for the voluntary separation of soldiers who have a received a locally imposed bar to reenlistment and who do not feel they could overcome such a bar.  The absence of records makes it impossible to determine why the applicant may have been barred from reenlisting.  However, in view of the fact that his separation document also reflects that his date of ranks as an E-3 was 20 May 1994, just two months prior to his separation, the Board contends that he was likely reduced in rank and subsequently received the locally imposed bar to reenlistment.

5.  The Board also notes that the applicant authenticated his separation document reflecting that he was separated in pay grade E-3.  While it is understandable that he may not have understood the intricacies of entries associated with his military training, awards, and military specialty, clearly he would have recognized that the separation document indicated he was being separated in grade E-3 rather than E-4.

6.  The fact that the Colorado Army National Guard allowed the applicant to enlist in pay grade E-4 in 1997 is not evidence that his 1994 separation document was in error.  Additionally, the fact that orders assigning him to the transition point reflected his grade, as E-4 is not confirmation the separation document was wrong.

7.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by showing in item 13 of his 1994 DD Form 214 that he was awarded two Army Achievement Medal; and

b.  by showing in item 14 that he successfully completed a 1-week combat lifesavers course in January 1994.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

___mdm__  ___aao__  __bje___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019849	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990526	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.