RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070000534 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. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Ms. Wanda L. Waller Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Margaret Patterson Chairperson Mr. Ronald Gant Member Mr. Rowland Heflin Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that item 17a (Secondary Specialty Number and Title) on his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period 12 September 1977 be corrected to show military occupational specialty (MOS) 91B10 (medical specialist). 2. The applicant provides no explanation. 3. The applicant provides a NGB (National Guard Bureau) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 24 June 1982. The application submitted in this case is dated 5 January 2007. 2. 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 allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. 3. On 5 January 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard for a period of 6 years. He was ordered to active duty on 4 April 1974 for training in MOS 94B (cook) and released from active duty on 8 August 1974. On 12 January 1976, the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard with a general discharge and ordered to active duty for failure to satisfactorily participate in required training. He served in MOS 94B, was released from active duty on 12 September 1977, and he was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his remaining service obligation. 4. On 23 March 1979, the applicant was awarded primary MOS 91B. 5. On 4 January 1980, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR. 6. On 3 November 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard. On 24 June 1982, the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard with a general discharge. 7. The applicant’s NGB Form 22 shows his primary MOS was 94B and his secondary MOS was 91B. 8. Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214. In pertinent part it states that 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The DD Form 214 is a "snapshot in time" and is a reflection of the applicant's record of active Army service at the time of his separation from active duty. Since the applicant was awarded MOS 91B in the USAR on 23 March 1979, 18 months after his release from active duty, there is no basis for amending item 17a on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 12 September 1977 to show this secondary MOS. 2. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error now under consideration on 24 June 1982; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 23 June 1985. The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING MP____ _RG_____ __RH____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ____Margaret Patterson___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20070000534 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070614 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 100.0000 2. 100.0500 3. 4. 5. 6.