RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060012850 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. Gerard W. Schwartz Acting Director Ms. Wanda L. Waller Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. John Slone Chairperson Mr. David Haasenritter Member Mr. John Heck Member 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, correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 25 April 1996 to show duty assignments and that she completed a 2003 training course. She also requests a complete copy of her military records. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that her DD Form 214 does not show that she participated with the 926th Engineer Company in Huntsville, Alabama or the 326th Chemical Company in Anniston, Alabama where she received training for a new military occupational specialty (MOS) at the Chemical School. 3. The applicant provides a copy of her Army/Ace Registry Transcript System (AARTS). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting correction of alleged errors which occurred on 25 April 1996. The application submitted in this case is dated 23 August 2006. 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 limitations 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 enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 5 June 1995 for a period of 8 years. On 24 October 1995 she was ordered to active duty for training and released from active duty on 25 April 1996. 4. Item 14 (Military Education) on the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 25 April 1996 shows that she completed the 10-week Medical Specialist Course in 1996. This DD Form 214 does not show any duty assignments. 5. In support of her claim, the applicant provided her AARTS which shows she completed the Chemical Operations Specialist Course (Phase I) at the Chemical School in Huntsville, Alabama in 2003. A DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 9 March 2003, also shows she completed Phase I of the (MOS 54B1O) Chemical Operations Specialist Course in March 2003 in Huntsville, Alabama. 6. The applicant’s Personnel Electronic Records Management System (PERMS) shows that on 28 September 2004 she called the U.S. Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis, Missouri for a copy of her complete military records and she was instructed to send a written request to the appropriate office. 7. Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the policies and procedures for completion and distribution of the DD Form 214. In pertinent part it states that item 14 will list formal in service training courses of 40 hours or more successfully completed during the period of service covered by title, length in weeks, and month and year completed. There is no provision to enter duty assignments on the DD Form 214. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. Since there is no provision to show duty assignments on the DD Form 214, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request to show two duty assignments on her DD Form 214 for the period ending 25 April 1996. 2. Evidence of record shows the applicant completed the Chemical Operations Specialist Course in March 2003. The governing regulation states that training courses completed during the period of service covered will be shown on the DD Form 214. Therefore, there is no basis for amending her DD Form 214 for the ending 25 April 1996 to show this 2003 course. 3. Evidence of record shows that in 2004 the applicant was instructed to submit a written request to the appropriate office for a copy of her military records. This Board has access only to the applicant’s records on PERMS, the same access the applicant has. Therefore, there is no basis for granting her request for a copy of her military records. 4. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged errors now under consideration on 25 April 1996; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 24 April 1999. 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 timely file in this case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING JS_____ __DH____ _JH_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that 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. 2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would 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. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __John Slone__________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060012850 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070419 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 100.0000 2. 100.0700 3. 4. 5. 6.