MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:       . 

		BOARD DATE:           16 September 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084956

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz	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 he be granted active duty service credit for time served in the Merchant Marine.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his active service for retired pay should be recomputed based on the provisions of Public Law 95-202.  He claims that his retired pay was computed based on his completing of 24 years of service and that with the additional five months he was credited with for his United States Coast Guard (USCG) with the Merchant Marine, his retired pay would be based on 25 years of active duty service.  He claims that when he was retired, he was told that he would receive an additional 5% of base pay for each year of completed service up to 75% of his base pay.  On 16 June 2002, he received a letter from the USCG that indicated that his service in the Merchant Marine was recognized in Public Law 95-202 and as a result he was issued a Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) documenting his Merchant Marine service.  

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

On 31 December 1969, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) in the Regular Army for the purpose of retirement.  The separation document 
(DD Form 214) issued to him at this time confirmed that he held the rank of sergeant first class/E-7 (SFC/E7).  This document also shows that at that time, he had completed a total of 24 years, 7 months, and 29 days of active military service and 24 years, 9 months, and 29 days of service for basic pay purposes.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Separated) on the date of his REFRAD.  

The applicant provides a letter from the USCG, dated 16 July 2002, which informed him that his service in the Merchant Marine had been acknowledged in Public Law 95-202 and he was provided a DD Form 214 that was issued pursuant to this law.  This DD Form 214 indicated that it covered a period 
of service from 6 September 1944 through 2 February 1945.  However, it 
did not grant service credit in Item 12c (Net Active Service This Period). 

Item 30 (Remarks) of the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant by the USCG contained the entry “This document, issued under the provisions of Public Law 95-202 (38 USC 106 NOTE), administratively establishes active duty service for the purposes of Department of Veterans Affairs Benefits.”  

Public Law 95-202 provided provisions that allowed the service of any person in a group (Merchant Marine) which rendered service to the Armed Forces of the United States in a capacity considered civilian employment or contractual service at the time such service was rendered to be considered active duty for the purposes of all laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  

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 his Merchant Marine service from 6 September 1944 through 2 February 1945 should be considered active duty service for retired pay computation purposes.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  Although the record is void of a separation packet containing documents used for the computation of the applicant’s retired pay, it does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 that confirms the applicant had completed a total of 
24 years, 7 months, and 29 days of active military service and 24 years, 
9 months, and 29 days of service for basic pay purposes.  

3.  The Board notes the applicant authenticated his 31 December 1969 DD Form 214 with his signature on the date of his REFRAD.  This confirms that he verified that the information contained in this document, to include his active duty service and service creditable for pay purposes, was correct on the date the document was prepared and issued.  Thus, the Board presumes the verified creditable service contained in this DD Form 214 was used in the applicant’s retired pay computation and it finds no basis to question the validity of that computation.

4.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant under Public Law 95-202 administratively establishes active duty service for the purpose of eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.  The law did not authorize this service to be creditable for retired pay computation purposes.  Thus, the Board finds no evidentiary basis to support conducting a new retired computation on the applicant at this time.  

5.  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.  

6.  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

__FE__  ___KH__  ___MM_ ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084956	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/09/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	196912/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Retirement	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.