MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  5 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002069899

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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:  Correction of item 11 (Primary Specialty) and item 
18 (Remarks) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

APPLICANT STATES:  That item 11 of his DD Form 214 shows 2 years and 
8 months as a 12B10, instead of 2 years, 11 months, 3 weeks, and 3 days.
He also states that the information contained in item 18 should not be there.
In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 10 February 1999, as a combat engineer (12B), for a period of 3 years.  He continued to serve until he was discharged under honorable conditions on 5 February 2002, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 26 days of creditable service.

Item 11 of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows the entry "12B10 00 COMBAT ENGINEER -- 2 YRS - 8 MOS" (12B10 Combat Engineer 2 Years and 8 Months).
Item 35 (Record of Assignments) of his DA Form 2-1  (Personnel Qualification Record) shows that the applicant began one station unit training (OSUT), which included basic training (BT) and advanced individual training (AIT) combined together, on 17 February 1999.  

Item 6 (Fourth Previous Assignment) of the applicant's Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) shows that he was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington, after completion of OSUT, on 21 July 1999.

His DD Form 214, item 18, indicated that he had not completed his first full term of service.

Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The regulation provides, in pertinent part, that the primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) and all additional military occupational specialties (MOS) served in for a period of one year or more, during the soldier's continuous active military service, will be entered in item 11 (Primary Specialty).  For each MOS, list the title with the years and months served.  For time determination, 16 days or more count as a month and that BT and AIT are not counted.  

The regulation also states, in pertinent part, that the following statement will be added to all DD Forms 214 without exception; "member (has) (has not) completed their first term of service."  Remarks are required for employment agencies to determine the eligibility criteria for former service members applying 
for unemployment compensation.  It also states that a service member normally should not be considered to have completed the first full term of active service if separation occurs prior to the end of the initial contracted period of service.  However, if a member reenlists prior to the completion of that period of service,
the first term of service is effectively redefined by virtue of the reenlistment and should be considered to have been completed upon execution of a reenlistment contract.  

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 evidence of record shows that the applicant enlisted as a 12B, completed OSUT, and was assigned as a combat engineer on 21 July 1999.  The evidence also shows that the applicant has a cumulative total of 2 years and 6 months of total service as a "12B10" instead of his contended "2 years, 11 months, 
3 weeks, and 3 days."  Therefore, he is not entitled to correction of item 11 of his 
DD Form 214.

2.  The evidence of record shows that he enlisted on 10 February 1999, was separated on 5 February 2002, and did not complete his first enlistment in accordance with the applicable regulation.  Therefore, item 18 of his DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ca___  __jm____  __mm____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069899	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020905	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20020205	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  635-200, 14C	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  6		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.