MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            29 JULY 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084135

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier request to have his MOS (military occupational specialty) on his separation document changed from 71B20 (clerk typist) to 11B (infantryman).

APPLICANT STATES:  In the Board’s original consideration of his request he notes that the Board misspelled his last name.  He also states that while he raised the issue of being assigned to Vietnam as an infantryman, the Board did not address that issue.  He states that although the Board cited his signature on his Department of the Army Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) and his Department of Defense Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) as evidence that he concurred with the information contained on those two documents, he states that he made an error and thought he was actually signing indicating that the information regarding his MOS was incorrect.  He maintains that he was trained as an infantryman, was assigned to Vietnam as an infantryman, and performed duties as an infantryman.  He states that he was never trained as a clerk typist and states that his records were changed without his permission.  The applicant also states that he does not understand how the Board can render a decision when the Board members “were not along side [him] as [he] was risking [his] life…performing [his] infantry duties.”  As in his original request, the applicant submits no evidence in support of his request for reconsideration, other than his self-authored statement.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case (AR2002074594) on 8 October 2002.

Although the applicant has not submitted any new evidence which would warrant reconsideration of his case, the Board does feel compelled to reconfirm that in spite of the misspelling of his last name on the original MOC (Memorandum of Consideration), and in correspondence to the applicant, the applicant’s records, and not someone else’s, were in fact reviewed by the Board.  Additionally, the Board notes that there was additional evidence contained in the applicant’s file which may not have been adequately addressed in the original memorandum of consideration, but which further supports the accuracy of the information reflected on his separation document.  As such, the Board believes that it would be appropriate to reconsider the applicant’s request in order to further clarify information contained in its original denial.

Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was nearly 19 years old at the time he enlisted in the Army in June 1970.  He was a high school graduate and had completed approximately 36 hours of college credit in consumer economics at a college in Glenellyn, Illinois.  His GT (general technical) score was 104.

The records do confirm that he was trained as an infantryman at Fort Polk, Louisiana and was awarded MOS 11B10 upon completion of training.  His completion of infantry training is reflected on his 1972 separation document.  Orders issued by the United States Army Training Center, Infantry and Fort Polk, confirmed the applicant’s award of MOS 11B10 on 23 October 1970.

Following completion of advanced individual training, the applicant was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for the purpose of attending a Noncommissioned Officer Candidate course.  He was temporarily advanced from pay grade E-2 to E-4 while attending the course.  Although his records do not contain copies of the orders which reassigned him from Fort Polk to Fort Benning, his Department of the Army Form 20 does indicate that he arrived at Fort Benning in November 1970.  In February 1971 orders were issued by the United States Army Infantry School reassigning the applicant to the Overseas Replacement Station at Oakland Army Base in Oakland, California for further assignment to Vietnam.  Those orders confirm that the applicant’s MOS at that time was 11B10.

The applicant arrived in Vietnam in March 1971 after reverting to his permanent grade of E-2.  Shortly after his arrival in Vietnam, he was promoted to pay grade E-3.  In May 1971 he was assigned to the 75th Support Battalion, 1st Infantry Brigade, 5th Infantry Division.  His Department of the Army Form 20 does indicate that he was assigned duties as a clerk typist in MOS 71B.  

On 25 July 1971 orders were issued by the 5th Infantry Division promoting the applicant to pay grade E-4 in MOS 71B20.  The effective date of the promotion was 18 June 1971.  His Department of the Army Form 20 indicates that upon promotion his original PMOS (Primary Military Occupational Specialty) of 11B was designated as his SMOS (Secondary Military Occupation Specialty) and MOS 71B20 became his new PMOS.

The applicant’s records contain a 15 June 1971 letter of appreciation from the Adjutant General of the 1st Infantry Brigade, the organization to which the applicant was assigned.  The letter, addressed to “all personnel” of the “Personnel Services Division” commends members of the division for their “teamwork and demonstrated efficiency” during a command personnel management inspection on 5 June 1971 and during an annual general inspection on 10 June 1971 during which the division received “very favorable results” and a “rating of excellent.”  The letter further notes that “considering the tactical situation existing in this combat area, the lack of properly trained personnel specialists, the uniqueness of the structure of this Brigade and the vast and seemingly unsurmountable problems encountered in our daily operations” the author looked “upon the results of both inspections with admiration and a great sense of pride on our accomplishments.”

On 30 August 1971 the applicant was reassigned to the Administration Company of the 215th Combat Support Battalion.  His principal duty was as a clerk (71B).

In February 1972, after receiving excellent conduct and efficiency ratings for his performance of duties as a 71B with the 1st Infantry Brigade and with the 215th Combat Support Battalion, the applicant departed Vietnam and was assigned to the United States Army Personnel Center in Oakland, California for separation processing.  Orders issued on 13 February 1972 “relieved” the applicant “from active duty not by reason of physical disability and transferred [him] to the Untied States Army Reserve….”  Those orders confirmed that the applicant’s PMOS, at the time of his separation was 71B20.  That same information is reflected on the applicant’s 13 February 1972 separation document.

As noted in the Board’s original consideration of the applicant’s case, he authenticated his Department of the Army Form 20 on 23 August 1971 and his Department of Defense Form 214 on the date of his separation.

Army Regulation 635-5, then in effect, established the policies and provisions for the preparation and distribution of the Department of Defense Form 214.  It noted that only the individual’s PMOS would be recorded on the separation document.

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.  Although the Board does acknowledge the misspelling of the applicant’s name in its original deliberation, the Board assures the applicant that his records were in fact reviewed and that the information contain in this memorandum of consideration, and in the original memorandum of consideration, was extracted from his Official Military Personnel File.

2.  While the applicant maintains that he performed duties as an infantryman while in Vietnam, and that his PMOS was changed without his permission and unbeknownst to him, the evidence contained in official military personnel files indicates otherwise.  There is overwhelming evidence that the applicant, although originally trained as an infantryman, was awarded an infantryman PMOS, and originally assigned to Vietnam as an infantryman, was ultimately assigned duties as a 71B.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in that specialty, received excellent conduct and efficiency ratings in that specialty, and received a letter of appreciation commending him for his performance of those duties.  

3.  Although the Board members were not present in Vietnam with the applicant, they do note that he has presented no evidence which would enable them to conclude that the information contained in his official military records is wrong.  The Board notes that the applicant was a high school graduate, with several semester hours of college, and a GT score over 100.  His contention that he believed that in authenticating his Department of the Army Form 20 and his Department of Defense Form 214, he was in actuality indicating that the information was inaccurate, is without foundation and unreasonable, considering the level of his intelligence.  In order for the Board to believe such an argument, the applicant would also have to maintain that he was promoted to pay grade E-4 erroneously, that the excellent conduct and efficiency ratings he received for his performance of duty as a 71B were wrong, and that the letter of appreciation in his file was inappropriate.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  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

__MKP __  ___WTM_  __TEO__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084135	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030729	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.