ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 July 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200001410 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of her previous request for correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her primary military occupational specialty (MOS) as 19K (M1 Armor Crewman). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Reconsideration Letter * Previous Record of Proceedings FACTS: 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 AR20180015442, on 13 August 2019. 2. The applicant states she is now supplying additional evidence to reconsider her case. The first part re-summarizes the first part of her career. The additional evidence, performed during the latter part of her career, supports the earlier portion of it. She based her request on the following reasons: a. The Pentagon gave me open orders to Fort Hood, TX, meaning that her placement would be determined upon arrival to her first duty station. Upon her arrival, the processing center determined her assignment based on slot availability, 39E (Special Electronic Devices Repairer). There were not any slots for her military occupational specialty (MOS) at any of the Maintenance units on post; so, she was assigned to G-3 Range Control, Fort Hood. The job description was "ATTS (Automatic Tank Target System) Handler," an item used for Tank Gunnery Training. This was not her decision. b. Staff Sergeant M and Sergeant First Class M were the primary people who trained, prepared and guided her through this part of her career. They were 19E (Armor Crewmember, Non Computerized). The Abrams M-1 Tank was a new evolution of the tank, requiring a new MOS and was introduced to Fort Hood units prior to her arrival, C Range was designed for the tank. One important thing to remember is that SFC M was a very key component later in her career. c. During the course of her assignment, she tried to transfer to several other units that accommodated her MOS. She did so to be proficient, promotable, and ready for duty. The first sergeants of these units wanted to assign her, but did not have the slots to do it. Upon assignment, from day one she took any and all responsibilities regarding her assignment to G-3 Range Control with a very serious mindset and conscientious effort to learn any and everything pertaining to the job, to include Range Safety Operations and Regulations pertaining to safety. This was an important aspect that was used later in her career. d. With this in mind, she had to learn everything about the Abrams M-1 Tank, Explosives, Range Safety, something outside of her MOS. She taught classes on safety, recognizing ordinance on the range and planning CALFEX (Combined Armed Live Fire Exercises). This led her to become Shop Supervisor, in charge of 13 men on her team. They trained the 1st Cavalry Division, 2nd Armor Division, Texas National Guard, Texas Reserve Units, NTC (National Training Center), Fort, Knox, KY, and M 's Red Cell operatives. e. She was assigned to Fort Huachuca, AZ from March 1988 to February 1990, Electronic Test Company Electronic Proving Ground, as a test technician. She was assigned to this test in the spring of 1988. There were nearly 300 people assigned to conduct operations in various locations all over post, with a team, (the one she was in) assigned to be located in the Impact Area of the post. (The East Range.) Some of her team members were civilians who knew nothing about EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) or the Federal violation we were committing. The test supervisors gave them a printout of their locations, complete with grid co-ordinances and name of location. Upon identifying this egregious error, she immediately brought it up to her chain of command about the violations of safety and made numerous suggestions, complaints about the impending danger they all were in if they weren't moved. She told them, (to include her chain of command), of her experience with Tank Range Operations, to include Federal Regulations, EOD, and her role with this. They would not listen to her. f. SFC S wanted to help her and did what he could. SFC B was assigned to tend to other duties that were required of his position, so she was not able to contact him. He was out of the area and would have helped her if he were there. They were expected to conduct their duties from late evening to sometimes mid-afternoon which made it even more dangerous. If a team member decided to walk around their site at night and accidently kick, step on, reach down or run over the unexploded ordnance in our area, they could have been maimed or killed. One of their teammate's site was on top of an old SGT York tank that was loaded up with unexploded ordnance. The civilian had no idea what danger he was in. An Armor Reserve unit helped her verify these concerns. Sergeant Major S , First Sergeant M (the NCO who trained her from Fort Hood), and Staff Sergeant B helped her confirm this. Here SSG B allowed her and her then husband, Specialist N to enter the War Room to verify the grid coordinates of their location. SSG B confirmed that they were planning a Gunnery Exercise within the range fan of their test sites, meaning that they would have had HEAT and Sabot rounds landing right on them. SSG B was very upset about this. g. With their support of evidence, she initiated a Congressional Investigation against the United States Army for placing personnel in the Impact Area, headed by Senator John McCain. His office was in Tucson, AZ. This was not an easy decision. She spent a few days composing a five page handwritten letter to the late Senator. Within three weeks of receipt, Senator McCain closed the test, restructured the test times, took them out of the Impact Area, built shelters to protect them from the elements, eliminated the fraud and abuse of funding, and made sure that that service members were protected from being treated badly. Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) G , their battalion commander, gave a major press conference, announcing these big, exciting changes. Peopled loved him. She, was hated, ostracized, shunned, and threatened on a daily basis. People in her unit taunted her and turned their backs on her. It was a very difficult time of her life. Only a very few select people, to include one of M 's former Operatives they trained at Fort Hood, remembered her and became her friend. h. She does not or never will regret her decision on moving forward with the investigation. Her three and a half year position at Range Control was a solid foundation as a 19K MOS, Armor Crewmember, a very important and pivotal part of her military career. In short, it saved lives. 3. Review of the applicant's service records shows: a. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 September 1981. Her initial enlistment contract shows she enlisted under the training of choice enlistment option for training in MOS 35E (Special Electronic Devices Repairer). b. Following completion of basic combat training at Fort Dix, NJ, she completed 11 weeks of training at Fort Belvoir, VA for award of MOS 35E. c. On 24 March 1982, Headquarters, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Belvoir published Orders 57-3, awarding her primary MOS 35E. d. Upon completion of training, she was reassigned to U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Hood, TX. Her DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows her duty MOS was 35E. e. She served in Germany from 25 August 1985 to 30 March 1988, assigned to the 124th Heavy Material Supply, also in MOS 35E. f. in April 1988, she was reassigned to the U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground, Fort Huachuca, AZ in MOS 35E. g. She was honorably discharged from active duty on 1 February 1990. Her DD Form 214 (certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she completed 8 years and 4 months of active service. It also shows in: * Block 11 (Primary Specialty), 39E, Special Electronic Devices Repairer * Block 14 (Military Education), Special Electronic Devices Repairer Course, 11 weeks, 1982 h. There is no evidence in her records and she provides none (such as a diploma, academic evaluation report, or certificate of training) to show she was formally training in MOS 19K or awarded such MOS during her military service. i. On 13 August 2019, the Board denied her request to award her MOS 19K. There was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice regarding the applicant's claim as no documentation was provided or found within the record showing the applicant was authorized the MOS 19K. At the time of the applicant's service, women were not authorized to serve in a combat MOS and there is no evidence in the applicant's service record or evidence submitted by her that she ever held this MOS. 4. By regulation (AR 635-5), the DD Form 214 is a summary of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of all current active, prior active, and prior inactive duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The information entered thereon reflects the conditions as they existed at the time of separation. For Block 11, enter the titles of all military occupational specialties served for at least 1 year and include the number of years and months served for each. 5. By regulation (DA Pam 611-21), in effect at the time, combat military occupational specialties were closed to female Soldiers. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined relief was not warranted. Based upon the available documentation, the lack of evidence showing the applicant was educationally qualified as the requested MOS. As a result, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change to the applicant’s DD Form 214. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XX :XX 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 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. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active duty service or control of the Active Army. It established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 is a summary of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of all current active, prior active, and prior inactive duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The information entered thereon reflects the conditions as they existed at the time of separation. The general instructions stated all available records would be used as a basis for preparation of the DD Form 214. The specific instructions for Block 11, is to enter the titles of all military occupational specialties served for at least 1 year and include the number of years and months served for each. 2. Department of the Army Pamphlet 611-21 (Military Occupational Classification and Structure), in effect at the time, prescribed the method of developing, changing, and controlling of officer, warrant officer, and enlisted military occupational classification structure. It stated that combat military occupational specialties were closed to female Soldiers. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//