IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 August 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120002742 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that he be issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to account for his active military service from July 1964 through July 1966 with an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states that he was on active duty from July 1964 until July 1966. He was stationed at Fort Hood, TX and Fort Polk, LA. The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) refused to issue him a DD Form 214, stating that he was not on active duty for 90 days. 3. The applicant provides: * 1981 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) discharge orders * 1981 Honorable Discharge Certificate * letter from the NPRC 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. The applicant's military records show he was appointed in the USAR as a second lieutenant. His available record is void of his date of his appointment, active duty orders, or a DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record). 3. A Memorandum, Subject: Equivalent Credit for the Engineer Officer Basic Course, dated 14 June 1965, shows he was awarded equivalent credit for his basic course as an USAR officer appointed from the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) for an USAR promotion. The memorandum is addressed to the applicant at the 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division, Fort Hood, TX through his commander at the 16th Engineer Battalion, 1st Armored Division, Fort Hood TX. It also references an earlier Headquarters, Department of the Army letter, subject: Active Duty of Reserve Commissioned Officers Appointed from ROTC, Fiscal Year 1965. 4. A DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report) shows he was on active duty from 10 August 1968 to 25 August 1968. 5. Orders Number 12-1068475 were issued by the USAR Components Personnel and Administration Center, on 24 December 1981, honorably discharging him from the USAR with an effective date of 17 December 1981. He was also issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 6. In a letter, dated 20 January 2012, the NPRC advised the applicant that a DD Form 214 would not be issued because he had no active service or less than 90 consecutive days of active duty for training. 7. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It established standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. Paragraph 1-4(1)(b) specified a DD Form 214 would be prepared for members of the Army National Guard and USAR separated after completing 90 days or more of continuous active duty for training, full-time training duty, or active duty support. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s contention that he should have been issued a DD Form 214 for his active duty has been noted. The available evidence shows he was appointed in the USAR before June 1965. He was properly issued discharge orders which honorably discharged him from the USAR on 17 December 1981. Unfortunately, there is insufficient evidence in his military records and he has failed to provide compelling evidence to show he served on active duty from 1964 to 1966. 2. Pertinent regulations show a USAR Soldier who has completed 90 days or more of continuous active duty would be issued a DD Form 214. However, there is no evidence available that shows he met this requirement. Therefore, he is not entitled to the issuance of a DD Form 214 showing he was honorably discharged for the completion of the required active service. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ____x___ ____x___ 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. _______ _ __x_____ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120002742 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120002742 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1