PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           20 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060342

	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. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 block 22a (1) (Net Service This Period) and block 22b (Total Active Service) of his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to show 3 years. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that blocks 22a (1) and 22b of his DD Form 214 incorrectly lists 2 years, 2 months, and 22 days of active military service.  He claims that the special separation program, under which he was released from active duty (REFRAD), authorized him to receive service credit for his first full term of service of 36 months and therefore, his separation document should have listed 3 years in the blocks in question.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of his separation order. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 13 November 1969, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 62L (Wheel Tractor Operator) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist five/E-5.  

5.  The applicant served in the Republic of Vietnam from 29 April 1970 to 1 April 1971 and at Fort Riley, Kansas, from 30 April 1971 until his separation on 
4 February 1972.  During his active duty tenure, he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge (M-14 Rifle), and Expert Marksmanship Badge 
(M-16 Rifle).  

6.  Special Orders Number 33, dated 2 February 1972, authorized the applicant’s REFRAD, effective 4 February 1972, and transfer to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for assignment to the 310th Field Army Support Command, Washington D.C., effective 5 February 1972.  This separation was accomplished under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, and the order contained the following special instruction that indicated the applicant was, “credited with his full term of active duty of 36 months.”  

7.  The DD Form 214 issued to and signed by the applicant on the date of his separation, 4 February 1972, indicated that he entered active duty on 
13 November 1969 and that he was REFRAD on 4 February 1972 after completing a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 22 days of active military service.  The remarks portion of the DD Form 214 contained no entry referring to the service credit granted the applicant in the special instruction portion of the order authorizing his separation.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty, or control of the Active Army.  It also contains standardized policy for the preparation and distribution of the DD Form 214.  The DD Form 214 item by item preparation instructions contained in the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation, in effect, indicated that the years, months, and days actually served on active duty would be entered in the net service this period and total active service blocks of the form.  

9.  The separation documents regulation also indicates that a soldier will not normally be credited with completion of their first full term of service unless they complete the period of service for which they contracted at enlistment.  However, it does allow for an entry in the remarks block of the DD Form 214 when a member is separated under some special program that authorizes them to be credited with completing their first full term of service.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the program under which he was separated should have resulted in his being credited with 36 months of service and that blocks 22a (1) and 22b of his separation document should have contained entries that indicated that he completed 3 years of active duty service. However, while the Board finds no basis for granting the specific requested relief, it does find some merit in the applicant’s claim of entitlement to service credit. 

2.  The record confirms that the applicant actually served on active duty from 
13 November 1969 through 4 February 1972, which is a total of 2 years, 
2 months, and 22 days.  Therefore, the Board finds the entries contained in items 22a (1) and 22b of the applicant’s DD Form 214 are correct.  

3.  However, the Board also noted that the order authorizing the applicant’s separation contained a special instruction that indicated that he was to be credited with his first term of active duty of 36 months.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to add the following entry in block 
30 (remarks) of his DD Form 214 at this time:  “Soldier credited with completion of his first full term of service of 36 months”.  

4.  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 by adding the following entry in item 30 (remarks) of the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned:  “Soldier credited with completion of his first full term of service of 36 months.”; and by issuing him a corrected separation document that reflects this change.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__JLP__  __MHM__  __RKS___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    __Jennifer L. Prater__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060342	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/11/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1972/02/04	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	Convenience of the Government	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT(PARTIAL RELIEF)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.  303	129.0100	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.