IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013792 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013792 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 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013792 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 amendment of an endorsement issued by the U.S. Army Primary Helicopter Center/School (USAPHC/S), Fort Wolters, Texas, dated 5 December 1969, to show he did not decline selection of other military occupational specialty (MOS) training. 2. The applicant states that because he was found medically unqualified for flight training, he chose air traffic control, surveyor, or photography schools; however, he was denied all of his choices. He contends that he did not "decline selection of other MOS training." He also contends he was willing to stay in the Army if he was given one of his three choices. All of his choices were denied so he decided to apply for a discharge based on "erroneous enlistment." 3. The applicant provides: * a statement, dated 26 August 1969, issued by an Army Medical Corps officer, pertaining to his eligibility for warrant officer flight training * endorsements, dated 5 and 18 November 1969, pertaining to his request for medical discharge * an endorsement issued by USAPHC/S, Fort Wolters, Texas, dated 5 December 1969, subject: Request for Medical Discharge 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 May 1969. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States) shows he enlisted for warrant officer flight training. 3. His DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows he completed basic combat training on or around 1 August 1969. 4. The applicant provides: a. a statement, dated 26 August 1969, issued by Army Medical Corps officer, which shows he was found not qualified for flying class by reason of below standard refraction and astigmatism. b. endorsements, dated 5 and 18 November 1969, which show he was being processed for a medical discharge based on his visual disqualifications for flight training. c. an endorsement issued by USAPHC/S, Fort Wolters, Texas, dated 5 December 1969, subject: Request for Medical Discharge, which includes the following statement; "[The applicant] was counseled on 2 December 1969 as to the provisions of paragraph 13b [Alternate selection], Army Regulation 601-108 [Personnel Procurement - Warrant Officer Flight Training Option] and declined selection of other MOS training, since he requests consideration for discharge UP paragraph 5-32 [Unfulfilled or erroneous enlistment commitments], Army Regulation 625-200 [Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel]." 5. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he was released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve on 16 February 1970. It also shows his release from active duty was due to "Erroneous Enlistment." 6. There is no documentary evidence in the applicant's available military record that supports his contention that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to select alternate MOS training for which he was qualified. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 601-108 (Personnel Procurement - Warrant Officer Flight Training Option), in effect at the time, provided in paragraph 13b (Alternate selection) that if an enlistee was found medically disqualified for flying subsequent to enlistment, enlistee would be counselled concerning an alternate selection and offered an opportunity to select any course for which qualified and for which quotas were available. Alternate selections would be honored. Enlistee was required to complete the term for which he enlisted. 2. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR), paragraph 2-9, provides that the Board begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant contends his records should be corrected to show he did not decline selection of other MOS training. 2. The evidence of record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army for warrant officer flight training; however, he was subsequently found unqualified for this training by reason of below standard refraction and astigmatism. The evidence further shows he was counseled on the provisions of Army Regulation 601-208, paragraph 13b and he declined selection of other MOS training. 3. He contends he elected, as alternate MOS training, the air traffic controller, surveyor, and/or photograph schools and his choices were denied; however, there is no evidence in his records and he provided no evidence that supports his contention. 4. Based on the absence of evidence to the contrary, even if he was denied his training choices, it is presumed the denials were based on his lack of qualifications for the training selected or because of the unavailability of the training at the time. It is also presumed he was offered training for which he was qualified, and for which quotas were available, and that he declined this training. 5. Based on the foregoing and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, government regularity must be presumed in this case. As a result, the applicant has failed to show that error or injustice exist in his military records. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013792 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150013792 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2