PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           16 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031103

	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.  

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show his correct service number and that he was changed from a cook to a “grunt”      (infantryman).

3.  The applicant makes no additional statement.  He provides no supporting evidence.

4.  The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 October 1969.  His enlistment contract does not show a social security number (SSN) or a service number.  Almost all documents in his files, to include his enlistment orders and his application for identification card, reflect a temporary identification number (TIN).  Only the DD Form 1584, National Agency Check Request and the DD Form 398, Statement of Personal History reflect his SSN.

5.  The applicant completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Cook).

6.  The applicant’s DA Form 20, Personnel Qualification Record, shows he served in Vietnam from 17 September 1970 through 6 September 1971 with the  4th Battalion, 3d Infantry, 11th Brigade as a cook helper.  On 28 December 1970, he received a letter of appreciation for his “dedication and hard work in preparing the 4th Battalion, 3d Infantry Mess for the …inspection.”  There is no evidence of record to show that either his primary or his duty MOS was changed to 11B (Infantryman).  General Orders 08923, Headquarters 23d Infantry Division dated 10 August 1971 show he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (1st oak leaf cluster) for service from 1 September 1970 – 31 July 1971.  Orders for the Bronze Star Medal (basic) are not available.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 shows that his unit was awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm for the period 8 February through 30 April 1971.

7.  On 8 September 1971, the applicant was released from active duty after completing 1 year, 10 months and 23 days of creditable active service with no lost time.  His conduct and efficiency had been rated as “excellent” throughout his term of service.  The evidence of record shows that he served in the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) under his TIN but that he enlisted in the Army National Guard from the USAR under his SSN.

8.  Army Regulation 600-2, in effect at the time, prescribed the procedures to be used for recording, issuing or changing several items of personnel information normally used as a means of personnel identification.  It provided that effective   1 July 1969, the SSN or TIN, as appropriate, would be used as the personal identifier number of Army personnel.  Chapter 4 provided for the issuance of a TIN for those individuals being processed for military service who did not have an SSN.  Where the individual came on active duty without an SSN, the TIN would be entered as a permanent entry on all records.  Upon receipt of an SSN, the TIN entry would be lined out and the SSN entered.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon retirement, discharge or release from active military service or control of the Amy.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation and distribution of DD Form 214.  Separation documents provide soldiers a record of their military service; the Army a source of information for administrative purposes; and governmental agencies an authoritative source of information for administering Federal and State laws pertaining to veterans.  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.

10.  Army Regulation 672-5-1, in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations.  It stated that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  At the time, a soldier’s conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as “excellent” for the entire period of qualifying service

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows, through entries on the applicant’s DA Form 20 and in a letter of appreciation received by him, that he worked as a cook during his tour in Vietnam.  This does not necessarily mean that he never performed infantryman duties; however, the key to entry of such information on the            DD Form 214 is the MOS held.  The evidence of record shows that he held MOS 94B throughout his term of service and was never awarded another MOS as either a primary or secondary MOS.

2.  The Board concludes that there was a Government error in regards to his social security number.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant probably had an SSN at the time he enlisted.  The Board presumes he did not have his SSN card with him at the time and so he was issued a TIN.  Since at the time of his National Agency Check it was known that he had an SSN, the Army should have required him to produce an SSN card.  The Board presumes the appropriate authorities neglected to do so and allowed the applicant to serve on and to be released from active duty (and the USAR) under his TIN.

3.  For historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should actually reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  Because the applicant enlisted under a TIN, served throughout his enlistment with a TIN, and separated with a TIN, this Board is reluctant to recommend that those records be changed.

4.  The Board notes that the applicant met the eligibility criteria for award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  The evidence of record also shows that he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (1st oak leaf cluster) and met the eligibility criteria for award of the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm.

5.  In view of the foregoing, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by awarding the applicant the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period 16 October 1969 through 8 September 1971.

2.  That the Bronze Star Medal (2d award), the Army Good Conduct Medal and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm be added to the applicant’s DD Form 214.

3.  That the Army Review Boards Agency Support Division furnish the applicant a Transcript of Military Records, DA Form 1569 showing his social security number.

4.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__aao___  __vbc___  __le____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Arthur A. Omartian
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031103	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000516	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.