MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           12 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002074215

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Bernard P. Ingold		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 his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected to show he served 6 months of active military service. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that Item 19a (Source Of Entry) of his DD Form 214 contains the incorrect entry “Active Duty For Training” and it should be corrected to read “Active Duty.”  In addition, he claims that Item 24a (Net Service This Period) contains an entry indicating that he completed 5 months and 
18 days of net service during the period and this entry should be corrected to read 6 months.  He further states that he joined the United States Army Reserve (USAR) under a program that required him to serve on active duty in the Regular Army for 6 months.  He also claims that other Reservists who participated in similar programs were given active status for this type of training and are now receiving veterans health care benefits.  In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214. 

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

On 5 March 1962, he enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) for a period of 3 years.  The Enlistment Record-Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 4) prepared on the applicant during his enlistment and agreed to by him contains 
no special option guaranteeing that he would serve in the Regular Army for 
6 months.  It is a standard contract showing that the applicant enlisted in the ARNG of North Carolina with an initial assignment to the 430th Transportation Detachment.  

Letter Orders (L0) Number (#) 101-62, dated 25 May 1962, issued by Department of the Army, National Guard Bureau, Washington, DC, ordered the applicant to active duty for training, effective 27 June 1962.  In addition, an Active Duty Report (DD Form 220), dated 28 June 1962, prepared at the US Army Reception Station Fort Jackson, South Carolina, during his initial active duty processing, confirms that the applicant was ordered to and entered active duty for training on 27 June 1962. 

The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his release from active duty (REFRAD), 14 December 1962, confirms in Item 11c (Reason and Authority) that he was REFRAD under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-205 & DA Circular 612-1, dated 1962, by reason of separation for Christmas Holidays.  Item 19a (Source of Entry) contains an entry confirming that he was ordered to active duty for training for 6 months.  However, Item 24a (Net Service This Period) verifies that he only actually completed 5 months and 18 days of net service for the period, and that he did not actually serve the entire 6 months of active duty.  Item 34 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged) contains the applicant’s signature, which confirms that he verified that the information contained in this document was correct at the time. 

Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents that were prepared for individuals upon retirement, discharge, 
or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  
Table 2-1 (DD Form 214 Preparation Instructions) stated that for active duty for training personnel check “other” and enter “Ordered to ACDUTRA” in 
Item 19a (Source Of Entry).  It also stipulates that the total amount of service actually completed between the dates shown in Item 19c (Date of Entry) and 
11d (Effective Date) will be entered in Item 24a (1) (Net Active Service This Period).  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that Item 19a (Source of Entry) and Item 24a (Net Service This Period) of his item his DD Form 214 are incorrect, but it finds this claim lacks merit.

2.  The applicant’s DD Form 4, enlistment record, gives no indication that he enlisted for any special option that guaranteed him 6 months of active duty service with the Regular Army.  Instead it shows that he enlisted in the ARNG of North Carolina for 3 years with no special options.  

3.  By regulation, the total active duty service entered in Item 24a (1) (Net Service This Period) of the DD Form 214 in question should be the amount of service completed between the date entered in Item 19c (Date of Entry) and 
11d (Effective Date). 

4.  In this case, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant was ordered 
to active duty for training for 6 months, and that he entered this period of active duty on 27 June 1962.  However, it also verifies that he only served on active duty for only 5 months and 18 days prior to his REFRAD on 15 December 1962.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the entries contained in Items 19a (Source of Entry) and Item 24a (Net Service This Period) of his DD Form 214, dated 
14 December 1962, are correct.  Further, the applicant authenticated this document with his signature, which indicates that the information contained in the DD Form 214 was correct at the time it was prepared.  

5.  Absent any evidence confirming that the applicant was guaranteed 6 months of active duty service, and based on the fact that he only actually completed 
5 months and 18 days of active duty for training, the Board concludes that there is no error or injustice related to active duty service data entered in the DD Form 214 in question.  Therefore, the Board finds no evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief. 
6.  Administering Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) benefits is not within the purview of this Board.  It is recommended that the applicant contact his local DVA for assistance to determine the specific reason or reasons why he would be denied DVA benefits when others who served under similar circumstances are receiving those benefits.  

7.  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

__RWA__  __KYF___  __BPI__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002074215	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.