IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003692 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 reconsideration of his previous request for correction of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) to include a copy of his original DD Form 214. 2. The applicant states: a. He did not, "request the reason and authority on his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 7 March 1975 be changed" as stated in the original record of proceedings. He does not disagree with why he was discharged or the information that was presented in the record of proceedings. b. He is saying that his original copy of his DD Form 214 has been changed since he received it in 1975. The information included on his DD Form 214 has been tampered with if you look closely at the font type one can easily see that the entries in item 9c (Authority and Reason) and item 10 (Reenlistment Code (RE Code)) are different. Because the information that was printed on his original DD Form 214 was tampered with and changed it is causing him problems with applying for and receiving veterans’ benefits that he believes he is entitled to. c. Somewhere there is the original copy of his DD Form 214 and he is requesting a copy of that form. 3. The applicant provides copies of the record of proceedings for Docket Number AR20140007100 and his DD Form 214 copy 2. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140007100 on 2 December 2014. 2. The applicant provides a new argument which was not previously considered and warrants consideration by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted on the Regular Army on 10 October 1972. 4. The applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). He was recommending the applicant receive a general discharge certificate. The commander stated the reasons for his proposed action were the applicant was a drug rehabilitation failure and his attitude and military job performance were far below acceptable standards. 5. On 24 February 1975, the appropriate authority approved his separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-37 of Army Regulation 635-200 for failing to meet acceptable standards for continued military service. The issuance of a General Discharge Certificate was directed. 6. On 7 March 1975, he was discharged. He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 28 days of total active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions. He was assigned an RE code of "3." He was assigned the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code "KMN." Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes), then in effect, specified the narrative reason for SPD code "KMN" is "Failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program)." The authority under this SPD code was paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200. 7. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. 8. The applicant claims item 9c and item 10 of his original DD Form 214 were tampered with. He provides a marked-up copy to show that the reason for his separation, the SPN Code, and the RE Code were changed. 9. A review of his official records failed to reveal any additional DD Forms 214 other than copy number 2 currently under review and it does not show any evidence of tampering. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-37 (Expeditious Discharge Program) provided for the discharge of enlisted personnel who demonstrated they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential. The regulation provided that no individual would be discharged under this provision unless the individual voluntarily consented to the proposed discharge. Individuals discharged under this regulation were issued either an honorable or a general discharge. 11. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) 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. It states, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge. There were eight copies of the DD Form 214 distributed at the time of its preparation. All Service members received copy number 1 of their DD Form 214 also known as the “Original Copy” because it contained original signatures. The “Original Copy” was either hand delivered the recipient in a ceremony or mailed to them. Copy number 2 was filed in the Service members’ official military personnel record as a permanent document. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. His new argument has been noted to include requesting a copy of his original DD Form 214; however, his argument is insufficient to show an error existed in the preparation and distribution of his 1975 DD Form 214. 2. There is no available evidence showing any other DD Form 214 exists other than copy number 2 currently in use and filed in his official military personnel record. There is no evidence the existing copy has been tampered with. Given that the 1975 DD Form 214 was prepared on a manual typewriter with carbon copies, the marked-up copy that he claims has been tampered with is identical to that in his record. 3. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show the record of proceedings is in error or that the reason and authority for his discharge are incorrect. By policy, he received the original copy of his DD Form 214 upon his discharge in 1975. Thus, the Board cannot comply with his request to provide him or reissue him copy number 1 of his DD Form 214 or the "Original Copy." 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140007100, dated 2 December 2014. _______________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) AR20120022197 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003692 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1