RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           18 NOVEMBER 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003087876

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his separation document be corrected to delete information indicating that he was on active duty for training and to show that he completed his “initial term of service.”

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he spent 15 months on active duty for training.  However, he states that his separation document does not indicate that he completed his initial term of service and when he applied for state unemployment benefits he was denied for that reason.  

3.  He states that he is a National Guard officer and has not completed his obligation, but that he does not have a full-time job and needs unemployment.

4.  The applicant provides a copy of his January 2003 separation document and copies of his active duty for training orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was an enlisted member of the Texas Army National Guard between May 1995 and September 2000.  

2.  He was discharged on 8 September 2000 to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer in the Texas Army National Guard the following day.

3.  On 27 October 2001 the applicant was order to active duty for training and remained on active duty in that capacity until 30 January 2003.  

4.  Orders issued by the State of Texas, Adjutant General’s Department on 
11 October 2001 confirmed the applicant’s active duty was for training purposes and were self-terminating upon completion of training.  The authority for ordering the applicant to active duty was Title 32 United States Code, Section 505.

5.  Title 32 United States Code, Section 505 provides, under such regulations as the President may prescribe and upon the recommendation of the governor of any State, for the Secretary of the Army to authorize a limited number of members of the Army National Guard to attend any service school except the United States Military Academy, and to pursue a regular course of study at the school.

6.  On 30 January 2003 the applicant was released “from active duty training” and returned to his National Guard unit in Texas.  His separation document makes no mention of completion of a first term of service.  Rather the document reflects that the reason for his release from active duty was “completion of period of active duty training” and the authority is reflected as “self terminating orders.”  

7.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) states that the Department of Defense Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) is a summary of a Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, and is issued to Reserve Component Soldiers completing 90 days or more of continuous active duty for training.  

8.  It states that Item 25 on the separation document will reflect the separation authority and that for a Soldier ordered to active duty for training by self-terminating order, the entry will reflect “Self Terminating Orders.”  

9.  It states that Item 28 will reflect the narrative reason for separation and is based on regulatory or other authority.  For Soldiers ordered to active duty for training on self-terminating orders the entry will reflect “Completion of Period of Active Duty Training.”

10.  Army Regulation 635-5 does provide for a statement in Item 18 (remarks) that a “Soldier (has) (has not) completed first full term of service.”  The remark is to assist the State in determining eligibility for unemployment compensation entitlement.  Routinely, a Soldier should not be considered to have completed the first full term of active service if separation occurs before the end of the initial contracted period of service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, that his period of active duty was for other than training purposes.  

2.  The applicant was not “contracted” for a period of active duty.  Rather he was contracted with Army National Guard and was ordered to active duty solely for the purpose of undergoing training.  Clearly the “completion of first full term of service” was intended to apply to those individuals who have contracted for a period of active military service as in the case of a Regular Army or Active Guard/Reserve Soldiers.  Such Soldiers would not have reemployment rights afforded to Reserve Component Soldiers ordered to active duty for training purposes.  

3.  Evidence available to the Board confirms that the applicant's period of active duty between October 2001 and January 2003 was for the purpose of undergoing training and not as a contracted period of active duty.

4.  While it is unfortunate that the applicant may not qualify for unemployment benefits according to the laws and policies of his state because his period of active duty was for training purpose, that disqualification does not serve as a basis to correct his separation document.

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 that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS  __  __MDM _  __BJE __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		_____John N. Slone  ____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087876	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20031118	
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.