RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF.

	BOARD DATE:            29 January 2004                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003088881

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 (DD Form 214) be corrected to reflect the proper military occupational specialty (MOS).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that Item 23 (Specialty Number & Title) should read Heavy Equipment Operator and not Clerk Typist.  He claims that he performed duties in heavy maintenance and operations for four months at 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and he asks what his MOS did he hold while serving at 
Fort McClellan, Alabama.  He also indicates that his separation document should show that he completed 16 months of service in Munich, Germany.  He further claims that the awards and decorations listed on his DD Form 214 should include the Meritorious Unit Citation and three oak leaf clusters to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) Campaign Medal.  

3.  The applicant provides no documents or independent evidence in support of his application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice that occurred during his active duty service, which ended on 26 August 1969.  The application submitted in this case is dated 10 March 2003.  

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 7 November 1966.  His record also confirms that his primary MOS was 71B (Clerk Typist).  His Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains a copy of a MOS Evaluation Data Report (EPEECO Form 10), for the period August 1968, which confirms that he tested in MOS 71B and received a test score of 93 for that period.  

4.  The Enlisted Qualification Record (DA Form 20) is not the original prepared on the applicant upon his entry on active duty.  It was prepared on 6 January 1969, after the applicant was awarded MOS 71B.  It provides no confirmation that the applicant held an Heavy Equipment Operator MOS or that he ever worked in a related MOS.  

5.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments) of the applicant’s DA Form 20 does show that he served in the RVN from 29 December 1968 through 24 August 1969, and that he was assigned to the 588th Engineer Battalion.  It also shows that during this assignment, he performed duties as a clerk in MOS 71B, and other clerical duties in the supply field.  There is no confirmation in this item that the applicant ever performed heavy equipment operator duties during the period January 1969 through August 1969, the periods listed in this record.  Prior periods are not documented on the DA Form 20 on file.  Further, there is no other overseas service recorded on the DA Form 20.  

6.  On 26 August 1969, the applicant was honorably separated, by reason of early release for school.  At the time, he had completed a total of 2 years, 9 months, and 20 days of active military service, and it shows the 7 months and 27 days the applicant served in the RVN.  

7.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his separation confirms in Item 23a (Specialty Number and Title) that he held the MOS of 71B (Clerk Typist) on the date of his separation.  Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, and Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) lists the following awards he earned during his tenure on active duty:  National Defense Service Medal (NDSM); Vietnam Service Medal; and Vietnam Campaign Medal.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 32 (Signature of Person Being Transferred or Discharged).  

8.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes the Army’s awards policy.  Paragraph 2-13 of the awards regulation contains guidance on the VSM.  It states, in pertinent part, that a bronze service star is authorized with this award for each campaign a member is credited with participating in while serving in the RVN, a silver service star is used in lieu of five bronze service stars.  

9.  Table B-1 of Army Regulation 600-8-22 contains a list of RVN campaigns. It shows that during the applicant’s tenure of assignment in the RVN, campaign credit was authorized for the following three campaigns:  Vietnam Counteroffensive Phase VI; TET 69 Counteroffensive 1969; and 
Vietnam Summer-Fall 1969.  

10.  Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) establishes the eligibility of individual members for campaign participation credit, assault landing credit, and unit citation badges awarded during the Vietnam Conflict.  It confirms that during his tenure of assignment in the RVN, the applicant’s unit (588th Engineer Battalion) earned the Meritorious Unit Commendation, RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, and RVN 
Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for soldiers on retirement, discharge, release from active duty service, or control of the Active Army.  Chapter 2 contains instructions for DD Form 214 entries.  The instructions for entering specialties states, in pertinent part, that all MOSs listed in the military personnel qualification records that a member served in for at least 1 year will be entered.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claims that he held and served as a Heavy Equipment Operator and that the time he served in Munich, Germany was not indicated in his record were carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant held and served in MOS 71B and the only overseas service confirmed is the 7 months and 27 days he served in the RVN.  Lacking any evidence of record or independent evidence to support his contentions, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis upon which to support this requested relief.  

2.  There is also a properly constituted DD Form 214 on file that indicates the applicant held MOS 71B (Clerk Typist).  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his separation from active duty, thereby, verifying that the information contained therein, to include the MOS entry, was correct at the time the document was prepared and issued.  There is no indication that the applicant questioned this entry at the time of his separation. 

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 26 August 1969, the date he was separated from active duty.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 25 August 1972.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.

4.  However, the evidence does show that the applicant’s record contains an administrative error that does not require action by the Board.  Therefore, administrative correction of his record will be accomplished by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Support Division, St. Louis, Missouri, as outlined by the Board in paragraph 2 of the BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION section below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__WTM__  __KF__  __RO___      DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  

2.  The Board determined that administrative error in the records of the individual should be corrected.  Therefore, the Board requests that the CMSD-St. Louis administratively correct the records of the individual concerned to show he is entitled to the Meritorious Unit Commendation, Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation, Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal First Class Unit Citation, and 3 bronze service stars with his Vietnam Service Medal; and by issuing him a corrected separation document that includes these awards.  

		Raymond V. O’Connor
		    CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088881	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2004/01/29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1969/08/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Early School Release 	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.