PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           21 November 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073602

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 her DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) issued for her active duty service in the Women's Army Corps (WAC) for the period 28 August 1969 through 9 March 1972 be reviewed and several errors corrected.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that errors exist in item 11c, (Reason and Authority); item 15, (Reenlistment code); and item 30 (Remarks) of her DD Form 214 regarding the Army Regulation cited concerning her lost time between 4 and 10 January 1971.  She states that the lost time occurred when she was a specialist/E-4 and that it was 9 months later when she was promoted to a specialist/E-5.  She states that the preparer of the DD Form 214 cited the section of the regulation pertaining to lost time for an E-5 and she was given a reenlistment (RE) code that applies to an E-5 with 7 days of lost time.  The applicant states that the AWOL was not intentional, but rather the stupidity of a very timid WAC who forgot to sign out for a weekend pass and never signed in.   She indicates she may have received an Article 15; however, she is not sure, but does acknowledge that her punishment was extra duty. The other error the applicant wants the Board to consider is item #24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized).  She states that the preparer made a mistake when he entered on her DD Form 214 that she had earned a marksmanship badge with the rifle.  She states that the WAC did not qualify with any type of weapon during her initial period of active service.  She indicates that her DD Form 214 for this period of service is troublesome to her and that she wants these corrections because it is something her children will see as they go through her personal effects someday. 

4.  In support of her application, the applicant submitted a statement in her own behalf, a copy of her DD Form 214, and a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regarding her request for a copy of her DD Form 214.

5.  The applicant's complete Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) for the active duty period of service ending 9 March 1972 was not available to the Board. Information herein was obtained from the applicant's DD Form 214 and excerpts from her OMPF.

6.  Following completion of all military training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91J, Physical Therapy Specialist, and was assigned to Fort Ord, California, as her first permanent duty assignment with a reporting date of 2 April 1970.

7.  On 12 March 1971, the applicant was reassigned to another unit at Ford Ord. The commander was informed that the applicant had 7 days of lost time (4 to 10 January 1971) and that this information was being furnished for information and any action he deemed appropriate. 
8.  On 9 March 1972, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, AR 635-200 for good and sufficient reason as determined by secretarial authority.  She was credited with 2 years, 7 months, and 6 days of active military service and 7 days of lost time.   She was assigned a Separation Program Number (SPN) of 21L, an RE code of RE-3B, and she was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and a Marksmanship Badge (Rifle).  

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, the conditions under which enlisted personnel may be discharged, released from active duty or active duty for training, or released from military control, for the convenience of the Government.  Paragraph 5-3 provided that the separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the government was the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army and would be accomplished only by his authority.  

10.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210, then in effect, covered eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter included a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-3B applied to persons not eligible for reenlistment unless the commander concerned grants a waiver.  This code applied to enlisted personnel classified ineligible for reenlistment under table 2-5, AR 601-210 or table 2-3, AR 601-280, because of time lost during their last period of service.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, prescribed policies and procedures regarding separation documents.  It prescribed the separation document that must be prepared for soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army and established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  This regulation stated that the authority for transfer or discharge would be entered in item 11c by reference to the appropriate regulation, circular, bulletin, special separation directive, statute, etc., followed by the SPN and descriptive reason for transfer or discharge.  It stated that the appropriate code would be entered in item 15 to denote eligibility or ineligibility for reenlistment and that RE coding would be cited in item 15 of the DD Form 214.  It also stated that item 30 would be used to complete entries too long for their respective blocks and that the item number must precede the continued information.  This regulation reflected RE-3B as the appropriate code for an enlisted soldier who has lost time during their last period of service.  Lastly, item 24 reflects all decorations, service medals, campaign credits, and badges awarded or authorized.
12.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, (Separation Program Number) Codes, prescribes the specific authorities, reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPN codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  Soldiers separated by reason of  "for good and sufficient reason as determined by secretarial authority" with lost time during their last period of service are issued an RE code of RE-3B.

13.  A reception-processing center received and processed new WAC recruits. WAC basic training operated in much the same manner as basic training for men, with the exception of combat instruction.  All recruits went through a regular eight-week basic training course.  Courses included physical training, administration, military justice, first aid, customs and courtesy, drill and ceremony, map reading and care/maintenance of equipment.  One week was devoted to bivouac, affording basic trainees the opportunity to live under field conditions.  They were also given the opportunity to fire the carbine rifle on a voluntary basis.  There is no documentation in the available record to show that the applicant qualified with any weapons during this period of service.

14.  In July 1975, defensive weapons training became mandatory in WAC Basic Training.  Msg, TRADOC 1414322 Feb 75 to DCSPER DA, sub: Weapons Training for Women; Msg, DCSPER 1719302 Mar 75 to TRADOC, same sub; DA Msg 2618322 Mar 75 to Maj Corns, sub: Public Affairs Guidance Defense Weapons Training for Enlisted Women; DA Msg 0919022 Jan 76 to Maj Coms, sub: Weapons Training for Female Soldiers, Active Army, Army National Guard and Reserve. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should actually reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, this Board is reluctant to recommend that those records be changed.

2.  The applicant's DD Form 214 appropriately shows that the applicant has a period of lost time totaling 7 days and that because of this lost time she was coded with an RE code of RE-3B.  Also, there is no evidence of record that RE codes are assigned based on an enlisted soldier's rank at the time he/she commits an act of misconduct.  Additionally, the Board found no evidence to support the applicant's contention that AR 601-210, Tables 2-4 and 2-5 were incorrectly applied.  Therefore, the Board concluded that the applicant has not shown that the information as shown in items 11c, 15, and 30 on her DD Form 214 is incorrect.

3.  The Board determined that since marksmanship training was not mandatory for the WAC until July 1975 that it would be in the interest of justice to remove the reference to Marksman (Rifle) in item 24 from the applicant's DD Form 214. 

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing to the individual concerned a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) removing Marksmanship (Rifle) from item 24 of the applicant's DD Form 214.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__fne___  __le____  __tl____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Fred N. Eichorn
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073602	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20021121	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.