PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002072025

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 that his report of separation (DD Form 214) dated 17 April 1969, be corrected to reflect his correct date of birth (DOB) and that his Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) be corrected in item 38, line 17, to reflect his correct conduct and efficiency ratings.

3.  The applicant states that his correct DOB is 3 October 1949 and that his first DD Form 214 dated 14 March 1968 correctly reflects it.  However, his DD Form 214 dated 17 April 1969, incorrectly reflects a date of 30 October 1949.  He also states that line 17, of item 38, of his DA Form 20, incorrectly reflects a conduct and efficiency rating of unsatisfactory, due to being absent without leave (AWOL).  However, he did not go AWOL until 4 February 1969 and the period evaluated was 9 August 1968 to 3 February 1969.  Accordingly, he should have received a different rating.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he was born in Woodland, California, on 3 October 1949 and he enlisted in Los Angeles, California on 16 May 1967, for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training, was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 16 February 1967 and on 14 March 1968, he was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment.  The DD Form 214 issued to him at the time indicates that his DOB is 3 October 1949.  He reenlisted on 15 March 1968, for a period of 4 years.  On 9 August 1968, he was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for duty as a parachute rigger.

5.  On 5 December 1968, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

6.  On 14 February 1969, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 4 February to 7 February 1969.  He was sentenced to be reduced to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.

7.  On 12 March1969, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  In his recommendation he provided statements from the applicant’s chain of command, which indicates that within a month of his assignment to the unit, the applicant began to display poor and sloppy work, when he was present for duty, which was infrequent.  He displayed a negative attitude and despite being placed under three different platoon sergeants, no improvements were noted.  His platoon sergeants indicated that he is the worst excuse for a soldier they ever encountered, his uniform and appearance was sloppy and dirty and he lacks any degree of esprit de corps.  He was content to allow others around him to work while he did nothing and took no interest in maintaining his gear or living 

area.  He completely failed to respond to counseling and displayed no interest in improving himself or accepting any help.  His commander rated his conduct and efficiency during his assignment to the unit as unsatisfactory.

8.  The recommendation for discharge was approved and he was discharged under honorable conditions on 17 April 1969, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability.  He had served 1 year, 10 months and 3 days of total active service and had 29 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.  At the time of his separation, his DD Form 214 indicated that his DOB was 30 October 1969.

9.  A review of the applicant’s DA Form 20 shows in item 38 (Record of Assignment) that from the period of 9 August 1968 to 3 February 1969, the applicant’s conduct and efficiency were rated as unsatisfactory.  The entry was made because his duty status changed on 4 February 1969, when he went AWOL.  The next entry dated 4 February 1969, reflected his duty status as AWOL. 

10.  Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, provided the authority for entering conduct and efficiency ratings on the DA Form 20.  It provides, in pertinent part, that conduct and efficiency ratings would be rendered by the unit commander for the period being rated.  A new entry was required each time a duty status changed and the reason for the change of duty status would be reflected under the “Reason” column of item 38.  Examples of reasons that would change a duty status entry were: Permanent change of Station (PCS), AWOL, Temporary duty (TDY), Confinement, Hospital, etc.  Unsatisfactory conduct ratings were used to indicate that a soldier does not conduct himself in a proper manner and consideration should be given to elimination from the service under the appropriate regulations.  Unsatisfactory efficiency ratings were given to depict that the soldier is below average in most elements of their assignment and should be considered for reassignment to duties more commensurate with their abilities or for elimination proceedings.  It should also be noted that the DA Form 20 is an obsolete form that is no longer available.

 CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It appears that at the time of separation, an administrative error occurred, which resulted in the applicant’s DOB being incorrectly entered on his DD Form 214.  Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the error at this time to show his correct DOB as 3 October 1949. 

2.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contention that he should have received different conduct and efficiency ratings for the period of 9 August 1968 to 3 February 1969 and finds it to be without merit.  The entry was correctly 

prepared based on the change of his duty status on 4 February 1969, when he went AWOL.  The evidence of record clearly shows that his commander rated his conduct and efficiency as unsatisfactory before he went AWOL as well as after he returned.  Although the form has long been obsolete, it was prepared correctly at the time and the Board finds no basis to make the requested change.

3.  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 showing on the DD Form 214 dated 17 April 1969, pertaining to the individual concerned, that his DOB is 3 October 1949 instead of 30 October 1949, as currently reflected.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__mkp___  __ao____  ___rvo__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		__Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002072025	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000/CHG DOB	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.