RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 06 December 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070009178 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. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Ms. Deyon D. Battle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Kathleen A. Newman Chairperson Ms. Rose M. Lys Member Mr. Edward E. Montgomery 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 correction of his Report of Separation from Active Duty (DD Form 214) to show that he served in Vietnam for 3 months. 2. The applicant states that the military personnel officer made a mistake and that he did not notice the omission until his veterans services representative pointed it out. 3. The applicant provides in support of his application a copy of his DD Form 214. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. 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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. On 1 April 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Army in Denver, Colorado, for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-1. He completed his basic combat training at Fort Lewis, Washington, and he was transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, where he completed his advanced individual training. He was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky, on 30 August 1971, where he went on to successfully complete his on the job training as an armament maintenance apprentice. 3. On 22 October 1971, the applicant was transferred to Germany. He remained in Germany until he returned to the Continental United States (CONUS) on 24 May 1974, and was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey. 4. The applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 28 May 1974 and he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). The DD Form 214 that he was furnished at the time of his REFRAD shows that the station or installation effected at the time of his REFRAD was Fort Dix, New Jersey. 5. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever served in Vietnam. 6. Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214. It provides, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will be prepared to reflect an individual's service as it exists on the date of REFRAD or discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever served in Vietnam while he was in the Army. 2. The applicant's contentions have been noted. However, his contentions are unsubstantiated by the evidence of record. His records show that once he left the CONUS on 22 October 1971, he was transferred to Germany where he remained until 24 May 1974, which was 4 days prior to his REFRAD. 3. There is no evidence in the available records nor has the applicant submitted any evidence that shows that he served in Vietnam. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case was correct. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show 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. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __KAN___ __RML__ __EEM__ 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. ___Kathleen A. Newman__ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070009178 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20071206 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 251 120.0000/FOREIGN SERVICE CREDIT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.