MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 January 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999024550

	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.

	Ms. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright 		Member	
	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		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 to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	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:  Correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show award of the Expert Rifle Badge (correctly known as the Expert Badge with Rifle Bar) instead of the Sharpshooter Badge with Automatic Rifle Bar.  He also requests that his time in service be changed from “2 months and 17 days” to “2 months and 18 days”.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he received a Sharpshooter Badge by mistake when he actually won an Expert Badge with 10 bull’s eyes out of 10 shots.  Also, he states that he enlisted on 22 June 1972 and was discharged on 8 September 1972.  He contends that he was credited with 2 months and 17 days when he should have been credited with 2 months and 18 days.  In support of his application, he submits a handwritten list of his dates of service.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 June 1972 for a period of three years and attended basic combat training at Fort Polk, Louisiana.  On 8 September 1972, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 for not meeting the medical fitness standards at the time of his enlistment.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not show the Expert Badge for qualifying with the M-16 Rifle as an authorized award.  A DD Form 215 (Correction of DD Form 214), dated 19 April 1991, in his personnel records does show he was authorized award of the Sharpshooter Badge with Automatic Rifle Bar.

There are no orders in the applicant’s personnel records which show 
he was awarded the Expert Badge for qualifying with the M-16 Rifle.  The applicant’s DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) does show he qualified as a Sharpshooter with the M-16 Rifle.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 months and 17 days of total active service.  His DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract) shows he enlisted in the Army on 22 June 1972.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Training Center Special Orders Number 246, dated 7 September 1972,  indicates the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty on 8 September 1972.

Army Regulation 600-8-22, in pertinent part, sets forth requirements for award of basic marksmanship qualification badge.  The qualification badge is awarded to indicate the degree in which an individual has qualified in a prescribed record course, and an appropriate bar is furnished to denote each weapon with which the individual has qualified.  The qualification badges are in three classes:  Expert, Sharpshooter, and Marksman.

Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs that the net service will be entered in the appropriate item of the DD Form 214.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant has not provided any evidence, which shows he was qualified as an Expert with the M-16 Rifle; therefore, he is not entitled to correction of his records to show award of the Expert Badge with Rifle Bar.

2.  Evidence of record shows the applicant honorably served on active duty from 22 June 1972 through 8 September 1972.

3.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 reflects 2 months and 17 days of total active service.  There is no evidence of error or injustice in the applicant’s records regarding his total active service, therefore, his DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted and he is not entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show he completed “2 months and 18 days” of total active service.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JNS_____  INW_____  LLS____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024550	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000112	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	107.00	
2.	100.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.