MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            8 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067128

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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:  In effect, that he be paid 18 months of back pay and allowances.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was not officially discharged from the Army because a Sergeant First Class (SFC) signed his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation From Active Duty) for the authorizing officer, a Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2).  The applicant states that this is a violation of Army regulation and, because of this violation, he was not officially discharged from the Army and, therefore, is entitled to back pay and allowances.

In support of his application, the applicant submitted:  an extensive statement detailing his contention why he should be paid back pay and allowances; a copy of his DD Form 214; and a copy of a letter, dated 20 June 1997, from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Enlisted Division.

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

On 30 July 1973, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty 31S, Field General Communications Security Repairer and was assigned to Korea for his first permanent duty station.  He was honorably separated on 30 April 1975 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He was credited with 1 year, 9 months, and 1 day of active military service.

On 1 May 1975, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years.  At the time of reenlistment, he had attained the rank of Specialist (SP4/E-4).  He reenlisted for his present duty assignment, MOS 31S, and was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana.

On 23 July 1976, the applicant was reassigned to Korea.  On 2 June 1977, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for making purchases in excess of the Post Exchange (PX) monthly dollar limitation.  His punishment was forfeiture of $128.00 pay for 1 month.

On 27 July 1977, the applicant departed Korea enroute to Fort Hood, Texas, where he served until 20 July 1978, when he was assigned to Germany.  The applicant arrived in Germany around 24 August 1978.

On 15 November 1978, the applicant requested separation under the provisions of chapter 6, Army Regulation 635-200 for financial hardship.  The company commander, battalion commander, and the brigade commander all recommended approval of the applicant's request.  On 17 January 1979, the approving authority approved the applicant's request and directed that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate and that Separation program Designator (SPD) code "KDG" be applied.

On 2 February 1979, the applicant was honorably separated after completing 3 years, 9 months, and 2 days of active military service on his enlistment and a total time in service of 5 years, 6 months, and 3 days.  His DD Form 214 shows his separation authority as paragraph 6-3a, AR 635-200 (dependency) with an SPD code of KDH.

On 2 October 1979, the applicant's narrative reason for discharge on his DD Form 214 was corrected to reflect that was separated for hardship (paragraph 6-3b, AR 635-200) with an SPD code of KDB.

On 10 October 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to change his narrative reason for discharge.  The ADRB found that the applicant's discharge had been properly approved by the appropriate authority and separation orders issued by his direction.

Army Regulation 635-5, then in effect, governed the preparation of DD Form 214. It required that Block 30 (Typed Name, Grade, and Title of Authorizing Officer) reflect the authorizing official, and Block 31 (Signature of Officer Authorized to Sign) reflect the signature of the person in Block 30.  Only a commissioned or warrant officer may authenticate DD Form 214, except when the chief or acting chief of the Transition Point/Transition Activity was a noncommissioned officer in grade SFC/E-7 or higher, or a civilian General Schedule employee in grade GS-7 or higher, then he /she could sign.  The signature authority could not be delegated.  The authenticating official's signature indicated that the information in the certificate was as correct as the records permitted; that a quality control check of the form had been made; and that the separation was valid and authorized by the approval authority.  

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.  The Board carefully reviewed the applicant's file and determined that the applicant is correct when he states that no one can sign in Block 31 for the authorizing officer listed in Block 30 of the DD Form 214.  In view of this fact, the Board concurs that the applicant should be issued another DD Form 214 with the proper signature and directs this action.  

2.  The Board concluded that the SFC signing for the CW2 did not invalidate the information on the DD Form 214, nor did it void the applicant's discharge from the Army.  Therefore, the applicant's discharge on 2 February 1979 was, and is, proper and in effect, and the Army does not owe the applicant any back pay and allowances.

3.   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 this requirement.

4.  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.

NOTE:  The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division – St. Louis is directed to issue the applicant a properly authenticated DD Form 214.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jlp___  __mhm___  __jea___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067128	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021008	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19790202	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 6	
DISCHARGE REASON	A35.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.