PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 August 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037489

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		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 Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) be corrected to account for his active duty time served.   

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that block 22a (1) (net service this period) and 22b (total active service) of his DD Form 214 incorrectly indicate he completed 
0 years, 0 months, and 0 days.  He claims that he actually had completed 
7 months and 7 days of active service at the time of his discharge. 

4.  The evidence or record includes a DD Form 47 (Record of Induction).  This document verifies that on 1 June 1967 the applicant underwent a physical examination and was found not acceptable for induction based on his being mentally challenged.  

5.  The DD Form 47 also confirms that on 7 June 1967 the applicant was reevaluated and the medical determination was modified.  Upon a physical inspection on this date, the applicant was given a physical profile of 1 1 1 2 2 1, a physical category of B, and he was found acceptable for induction into the 
Armed Forces. 

6.  The record of induction also substantiates that on 20 February 1968 the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years.  This induction was the result of his being found fit for induction into the Armed Forces after undergoing a physical inspection.

7.  The applicant’s  Department of the Army (DA) Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) verifies that he successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  Upon the completion of his AIT the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 
64A (Light Vehicle Driver), and he was assigned to the United States Army Pacific for his first permanent duty station.

8.  On 15 July 1968, the applicant was admitted to the Letterman General Hospital, San Francisco, California, as a patient.  He underwent a medical evaluation which discovered that he was suffering from a medical condition that existed at the time of his induction.  The evaluation further indicated that this medical condition did not meet the regulatory physical standards for induction or retention in the Armed Forces. 

9.  On 18 September 1968, after being advised of the results of his medical evaluation, the applicant requested that he be released from the Army by reason of void induction.  On 19 September 1968, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for separation.  Accordingly, on 27 September 1968 he was honorably discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of not meeting medical fitness standards at the time of induction.

10.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at the time of his discharge verifies that he had entered active duty on 20 February 1968 and that he was honorably discharged and separated from active duty on 28 September 1968.  However, block 17c (Date of Entry) contains an NA (Not Applicable) entry and block 
22 (Statement of Service) credits the applicant with no military service and the entries in block 22a (1) and 22b indicate 0 years, 0 months, and 0 days of military service.  

11.  However, the applicant’s DD Form 214 does show, in block 23a 
(Specialty Number and Title), that he was awarded MOS 64C. In addition, block 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) indicates that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal.  Finally, block 29 (Education and Training Completed) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 confirms that he completed 5 weeks of Light Vehicle Driver training at Fort Leonard Wood in 1968.  

12.  Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 provides the current policy for the separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards.  It states, in effect, that soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards at the time of enlistment will be separated.  Service is normally characterized as honorable for members separating under these provisions. 

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes policy for preparing and distributing DD Form 214.  Paragraph 2-8 contains specific block by block instructions for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states, in effect, that all active duty service performed will be entered on the DD Form 214, except that time that is considered time lost under the provisions of law.

14.  Title 10 of the United States Code, section 972, provides the legal authority for the effect of time lost on members of the Armed Forces.  This law states, in effect, the enlisted members are required to make up time they lost as a result of desertion, absent without leave, confinement by military or civilian authorities, or periods they are unable to perform his duties because of intemperate use of drugs or alcoholic liquor, or because of disease or injury resulting from his misconduct.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The  evidence or record confirms that the applicant was accepted for induction by the appropriate military officials even though they were aware of his previously identified disqualifying medical condition.  In the opinion of the Board, this absolves the applicant of any culpability in the erroneous induction action. 

2.  Although the applicant’s induction was voided, it does not automatically follow that the 7 months and 8 days of honorable active duty service he actually performed, between 20 February and 27 September 1968, should also be invalidated.  By regulation, all service performed by a member should be codified in their DD Form 214, minus that time lost under the provisions of Title 10 of the Untied States Code, section 972.  

3.  In the interest of justice and equity, given the applicant accrued no time lost as defined by the law, the Board finds the applicant should be credited with all the honorable active duty service he performed and that it would be appropriate to correct his DD Form 214 to reflect this service at this time.  

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing the individual concerned a corrected DD Form 214 that reflects the following information:  block 17c – 20 February 1968; block 22a(1) - 0 years, 
7 months, 8 days; and block 22b - 0 years, 7 months, 8 days.  

BOARD VOTE:  

___sw___  ___lds __  ___mm__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Sherri V. Ward______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037489	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1968/09/27	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Void Induction	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.