PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            31 JULY 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082782

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Gail J. Wire 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		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 that his 1969 separation document be corrected to show that he was not ordered to active duty for training (ACDUTRA), but rather that he was “called to Regular active duty to go to Vietnam.”  In support of his request he submits copies of his orders assigning him to Fort Bliss, Texas.  The applicant states that he is attempting to secure Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and the ACDUTRA entry on his separation document is preventing him from securing those benefits.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve for a period of 6 years on 7 May 1964.  In conjunction with his 7 May 1964 enlistment, he was ordered to active duty for training on 30 June 1964 to undergo basic and advanced individual training.  He completed his training and was released from active duty on 8 December 1964.  

4.  In February 1965 the applicant was transferred from his Troop Program Unit (TPU) in Chico, California to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) under the provisions of Army Regulation 140-10.

5.  Army Regulation 140-10 provided, in pertinent part, that enlisted soldiers could be transferred to an appropriate control group of the Individual Ready Reserve for a variety of reasons, including personal reasons, confirmed unresolvable employment conflicts, and dependency or hardship.  The actual basis for the applicant’s transfer was not in records available to the Board.

6.  The applicant’s records contain an acknowledgement document, authenticated by the applicant on 28 August 1967 which states that he was acknowledging “receipt of your letter which outlines the policies and options which are applicable to me as a Reserve Components member subject to involuntary order to active duty under the provisions of Public Law 89-687.

7.  Public Law 89-687, enacted in October 1966, permitted activation of entire reserve units for periods of 24 months, and authorized the President to order to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months, any member of the Ready Reserve who was not assigned to, or participating satisfactorily in, a unit of the Ready Reserves.

8.  On 15 May 1968 the Office of The Adjutant General, United States Army Administration Center in St. Louis, Missouri, published orders which “ordered [the applicant] to active duty” for a period of 24 months “less active duty previously performed, unless sooner relieved by proper authority.”  The authority for the applicant’s activation was Title 10, United States Code, Section 673a and Public Law 89-687.

9.  Title 10, United States Code, Section 673a, in effect at the time, authorized “in time of national emergency declared by the President…or when otherwise authorized by law, and authority designated by the Secretary concerned may, without the consent of the person concerned, order any unit, and any member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve under the jurisdiction of that Secretary to active duty (other than for training) for not more than 24 consecutive months.”

10.  During the applicant’s period of active duty he was assigned to Fort Bliss, Texas where he performed duties as a personnel specialist.  Throughout his period of active duty he retained his “ER” (Enlisted Reserve) serial number and his component was listed as USAR (United States Army Reserve).

11.  On 31 January 1969 the applicant was released from active duty after his request for separation based on dependency was approved.  His 1969 separation document notes, in item 17a (source of entry) reflects “Ordered to ACDUTRA.”

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant was in fact a member of the United States Army Reserve at the time he was ordered to active duty in 1968, he was not ordered to active duty for training purposes as his 1969 separation document indicates.

2.  While the evidence does not indicate that the applicant was integrated into the Regular Army when he was order to active duty, the Board does note that he was ordered to active duty under the provisions of PL 89-687 and Title 10, United States Code, Section 673a, which specifically indicated that individuals ordered to active duty under that provision of law were not being ordered to active duty for training.

3.  The Board is satisfied that the evidence of record confirms that the applicant was not ordered to active duty for training and concludes that it would be appropriate, and in the interest of justice and equity, to correct item 17a of his 1969 separation document to show “Ordered to Active Duty under PL 89-689 and Sec 673a, Title 10, U.S.C.” vice “Ordered to ACDUTRA.”

4.  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 in item 17a of the applicant’s 1969 separation document that he was “Ordered to Active Duty under PL 89-689 and Sec 673a, Title 10, U.S.C.”

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__GJW__  ___KAH _  ___RLD _  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______Gail J. Wire_______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082782	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030731	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.