PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048292

	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:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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 separation document be corrected to account for all his active duty service. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he served on active duty longer than the 
6 months reflected in blocks 24a (net service this period) and 24b (total active service) of his Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge).  He claims that he was held on active duty for medical reasons and actually completed 1 year and 1 month of active military service during that active duty period.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of a Department of the Army (DA) Form 199 (Proceedings of Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), with an attached summary of the proceedings from the PEB recorder. 

4.  The applicant’s military records were not available to the Board for review.  A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members’ records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973.  It is believed that the applicant’s records were lost in that fire.  

5.  However, the available evidence does include a DD Form 214, which indicates that the applicant entered active duty (EAD) for training as a member of the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 11 August 1957 and that he was released from active duty (REFRAD) at Fort Ord, California on 10 February 1958. 

6.  The separation document also indicates, in Blocks 24a and 24b, that the applicant completed 6 months of active military service during this period of active duty and that upon his REFRAD on 10 February 1958 he was reassigned to the United States Military District of Missouri and reverted to his USAR status. 

7.  The available evidence also includes a VA Form 3101 (Request for Information), dated 17 November 1958, submitted to the Army by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adjudication officer, in which the Army is requested to verify the applicant’s active duty service. 

8.  On 17 December 1958, the Office of The Adjutant General (OTAG) of the Army responded to the VA request for information.  In its response, OTAG verified that the applicant enlisted in the USAR on 18 April 1957, EAD on 
11 August 1957, and was REFRAD and transferred back to the USAR on 
1 August 1958.  

9.  The applicant provided a PEB proceedings cover sheet, with the recorder’s summary continuation sheet attached, dated 13 June 1958.  It shows that a PEB convened at Letterman Army Hospital, San Francisco, California, on 13 June 1958, pursuant to Special Orders 2-68, dated 10 April 1958, issued by Sixth Unites States Army, to consider the applicant’s case.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his DD Form 214 incorrectly accounts for his active duty service and finds this claim has merit.  

2.  In the opinion of the Board, it is likely the applicant’s DD Form 214 was prepared using information and service projections contained in the original order to active duty published by the USAR, which presumed he would complete training and be REFRAD on 10 February 1958.  

3.  However, notwithstanding the 6 months of active duty service credited in the DD Form 214 and the applicant’s claim that he served for 1 year and 1 month, the Board concludes the most accurate accounting of the applicant’s active duty service is contained in the VA Form 3101, dated 17 December 1958, in which the OTAG verified that he served on active duty from 11 August 1957 to 1 August 1958.

4.  Based on the OTAG service verification, the Board concludes that blocks 
11d (effective date), 24a (net active service this period) and 24b (total active service) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 should be corrected to show that the effective date of his separation from active duty was 1 August 1958 and that he completed 11 months and 22 days of active duty for the period and in total.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That blocks 11d (effective date), 24a (net active service this period) and 
24b (total active service) of the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned be corrected to show that the effective date of his separation from active duty was 
1 August 1958 and that he completed 11 months and 22 days of active service for the period and in total.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__ao____  __bfh ___  ___teo __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Arthur A. Omartian____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048292	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/01/30	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1958/02/10	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.