MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           11 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001054092

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. E. Schnupp		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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:  That the time he spent in the Merchant Marine be considered active service credit.

APPLICANT STATES:  That when he retired in 1969 Merchant Marine service was not considered active service time.  Since then, it has come to his attention that wartime service in the Merchant Marine could be counted as active service time. 

In support of his request, he submits two DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, with continuation sheet, prepared by the US Coast Guard, reflecting his service with the Merchant Marine.

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

He retired from the Regular Army on 31 July 1969 in the grade of master sergeant with over 22 years of active service.

The two DD Forms 214 he submits show that he completed two separate periods of service with the Merchant Marine between 3 June 1943 and 30 May 1946.  Each document contains the remark that the DD Form 214 was issued under the authority of Public Law 95-202 or Public Law 105-368 for the purpose of administratively establishing service solely for benefits under chapter 23 (relating to burial benefits) and chapter 24 (interment benefits) of Title 38, United States Code.  The period of service reflected on the form was to establish active duty service for the purpose of Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits.

In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The PERSCOM opined that the Merchant Marine is not and never has been an active force within the armed forces as established by congress.  However, the congress did enact public laws for the purpose of providing veterans benefits for certain former members of the Merchant Marine, but time spent in the Merchant Marine was not considered active service.  The advisory opinion also points out that since the applicant is now retired he is already entitled to certain DVA benefits as well as Tricare insurance if he so desires.  The PERSCOM contends that the applicant’s request is without merit.

The PERSCOM advisory opinion was furnished to the applicant for information and rebuttal, however, he did not reply.

The provisions of Public law 95-202 administratively established active duty for the purpose of DVA benefit for civil service seamen, who were employed by the War Shipping Administration or Office of Defense Transportation or their agents as merchant seamen documented by the US Coast Guard or Department of Commerce, or as a civil servant employed by the US Army Transport Service or the Naval Transportation Service, and who served satisfactorily as a crew member during the armed conflict aboard merchant vessels in oceangoing service or foreign waters.

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

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged from the Merchant Marines on 30 May 1946 after 2 years and 11 months and 16 days of service.  However, under Public Law 95-202 the time spent in the Merchant Marines is not considered active duty service and therefore, is not creditable toward the total active service he accrued while on active duty.

2.  The DD Forms 214 issued to him by the US Coast Guard under Public Law 95-202, administratively established his service for DVA purposes only.  His Merchant Marine service does not entitle him to any other benefits.

3.  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

__mdm__  _____jhl_  ____jam _  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001054092	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011011	
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.  113.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.