PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           30 JULY 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065554

	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.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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, Mr.        , U.S. Army (Retired), requests that American citizenship be granted his English daughter.  However, on 4 April 2002, the applicant amended his application to request that his records be corrected to show that he had a dependent daughter while he was in the Army.

3.  The applicant states that he was unaware of his daughter’s existence until 1999 when she contacted him.  The reason he did not know of her existence was because her mother’s letters to him in Vietnam were returned to her unopened and unread by him because those letters had written across them, “MISSING IN ACTION.”  After so many letters were returned, her mother assumed that he [the applicant] had been killed in action, so she stopped writing.  The applicant encloses documents described herein. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army for three years on 28 October 1966, completed training, and in March 1967 was assigned to Germany with the 583d Ordnance Company.  On 28 November 1967 orders were published directing him to report to Rhein/Main Air Base in Germany on    30 November 1967 for onward movement to Oakland, California and subsequent assignment to Vietnam.  In February 1968 the applicant was assigned to Vietnam with the 5th Battalion, 60th Infantry, a 9th Infantry Division organization.   

5.  On 7 May 1968 the applicant was wounded in action.  He was dropped from the strength of his unit on 9 May 1968.  He was medically evacuated to the    106th General Hospital in Japan on 15 May 1968.  On 22 May 1968 the applicant was reassigned to William Beaumont General Hospital in El Paso, Texas.  On     2 October 1968 a Physical Evaluation Board determined that the applicant was physically unfit for military service and that he should be permanently retired with a 100 percent disability rating.  The applicant was permanently retired on            4 November 1968.   

6.  In a 12 May 2000 statement, a Ms.           stated that all correspondence with the applicant ceased in the early part of 1968, and that some letters sent to him prior to June 1968 were returned to her with “Missing in action” written on them.  She stated that she was pregnant with his child, that she tried various ways to get in touch with him, to no avail, and assumed that he had been killed in action.  Her daughter was born illegitimately in Germany, and they returned to England in 1969.  In early 1984 her daughter was adopted by herself and her husband (surname       ) in order that she gain British nationality to obtain a passport for a school trip.  She stated that it was always assumed that the applicant was dead and no effort was made to contact him, until her daughter did so in 1999 and found him in New Mexico.  It was neither her fault, her daughter’s fault, nor the applicant’s fault that there had been no contact.  The American Army should have known where their soldiers were, and all correspondence to the applicant should have been delivered to him.

7.  Attached to the statement by Ms.       is a 2 March 2000 letter from a 
Ms.        , to a Member of Congress requesting assistance in obtaining American citizenship.  She provides much of the same information as Ms.     (her mother), implied that she located the applicant, and stated that she visited him in October 1999.  She stated that American citizenship is important to her, and is her birthright.  Attached to that letter is a copy of a certificate of birth showing that she was born to Ms.     (then Ms.   ) on 25 July 1968 in a British military hospital in Germany.  Also attached is a copy of a paternity evaluation laboratory report, showing that DNA samples were collected from Ms.        and from the applicant on 19 September 2000 and 18 August 2000, respectively.  The testing agency concluded that the applicant could not be excluded as the biological father of 
Ms.         , and that based on the test results, the probability of paternity was 99.87 percent, as compared to an untested, random man of the North American Caucasian population.  The agency stated that at least 99.71 percent of the North American Caucasian population was excluded from the possibility of being the biological father of Ms.        .  

8.  In a July 2001 letter to a Member of Congress the applicant requested assistance in seeking American citizenship for Ms.        , his daughter.  He outlined the circumstances concerning his Army service, his daughter’s birth, and the attempts by her mother to locate himself.  He stated that while he is responsible for his daughter being born illegitimate, he is not responsible for failing to legitimatize her and passing onto her American citizenship in 1968 when he could have done so.  Her mother’s mail should have been forwarded to him.  He stated that he would like to now rectify the situation, to do whatever is necessary to make his daughter an American citizen.  The applicant provided a synopsis of his daughter’s present day life, her husband’s life, and his own life.  He stated that a clerk’s error resulted in the cost of 31 years of a relationship with a child that he did not know existed. 

9.  Members of this agency reviewed daily situation reports, log reports, and unit morning reports of the 5th Battalion, 60th Infantry for 7 and 8 May 1968.  There was no information indicating that the applicant was listed as “missing in action.”  The unit morning report of 9 May 1968 did show that he was wounded in action on 7 May 1968 and evacuated.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In all probability, the applicant, Mr.        , is the biological father of Ms.       .  Consequently, the applicant’s record should reflect the fact that the applicant fathered Ms.        , who was born on 25 July 1968, while Mr.        was in the Army.   

2.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant, Mr.       , is the biological father of Ms.        , who was born on 25 July 1968 during the time the applicant was in the Army.   

BOARD VOTE:  

__AAO__  __KAH __  __TL ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Arthur A. Omartian___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065554	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020730	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.	102.1	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.