RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 JANUARY 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003090163

	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. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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 that his records be corrected to show his temporary duty (TDY) status served in Vietnam.

2.  The applicant states that he was TDY in Vietnam in 1966, and that he is assembling his awards and decorations for his family members and wishes to reflect his brief presence in Vietnam.

3.  The applicant provides a statement of support from a former civilian employee attesting to the applicant’s temporary tour in Vietnam.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on 
30 November 1967.  The application submitted in this case is dated 16 April 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 was appointed as a second lieutenant on 5 October 1945, in the Army of the United States, and entered active duty on 20 August 1949.  He served continuously until his retirement as a lieutenant colonel on 30 November 1967.  

4.  Item 17 of his DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record) states that the applicant’s last tours of duty for the period in question was Fort Shafter, Hawaii, and Sandia Base, New Mexico.  There is no indication of service in Vietnam.

5.  The applicant’s 13 February 1966, Officer Efficiency Report contains a statement that because of his expertise in target intelligence, a request was made for him to be sent TDY to Vietnam to assist in the organization of a targets section.  However, there is no confirmation that those orders were ever executed. 

6.  The only TDY orders in the applicant’s available records are those issued on 2 June 1966, with a report date of 12 June 1966 to Johnston Island, Hawaii.  There are no TDY orders in the applicant’s records for Vietnam.

7.  A statement provided by the applicant from one of his former employees states “that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the applicant was unexpectedly issued travel orders to Vietnam, sometime during the first quarter of 1966.”  

8.  Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, established the policies and provisions for the preparation of separation documents.  It states that information in item 24c (Foreign Service) will be extracted from item 17 of the officer’s 
DA Form 66.  There is no information in item 17, of his DA Form 66 concerning service in Vietnam.

9.  The Vietnam Service Medal is awarded to individuals who serve on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days in Vietnam.   

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s available records nor did he provide documentation to substantiate his claim that he was TDY to Vietnam.  The statement provided by the applicant from one of his former employees is insufficient to verify his service in Vietnam.  

2.  Although the applicant is assembling his awards and decorations and wishes to reflect his brief time in Vietnam, his service in Vietnam can not be confirmed, and even if he would have served briefly in Vietnam he would not be entitled to award of the Vietnam Service Medal.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 30 November 1967; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 29 November 1970.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MKP__  __ALR __  __WDP__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.  

		__Margaret K. Patterson__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090163	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040115	
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.	107.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.