IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110022481 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of item 4 (Component and Branch or Class) of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) to show he was in the Army Security Agency (ASA) as opposed to the Signal Corps. He further requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 to add unit awards associated with his assignment in the ASA. 2. The applicant states: * his DD Form 214 shows he was in the Signal Corps – this is incorrect * he enlisted in the ASA and spent his time in service as a radio intercept operator * he was in the 354th Communications Reconnaissance Company in the United States and in Germany and with Security Detachment 1 on Eniwetok Island for bomb tests * as a member of the ASA he would be entitled to at least one or two more medals, then his DD Form 214 would be correct 3. The applicant provides: * documentation pertaining to his participation and radiation exposure in 1952 * Honorable Discharge Certificate * DD Form 214 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. 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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's complete military records are not available to the Board for review. A fire destroyed approximately 18 million service members' records at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. It is believed that the applicant's records were lost or destroyed in that fire. However, there were sufficient documents remaining in a reconstructed record for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of this case. 3. His DD Form 214 shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 March 1951 for a period of 3 years. On 17 February 1954, he was honorably discharged. 4. His DD Form 214 shows: * his branch as Signal Corps * he attended the Signal School for the High Speed Radio Operator Course during the period May to October 1951 * his most significant duty assignment was with the 354th Communications Reconnaissance Company 5. Item 5 (Specialty Number of Symbol) of his DD Form 214 does not list his military occupational specialty (MOS). 6. The applicant provides a Scenario of Participation and Radiation Exposure which shows his duty station during Operation IVY was on Eniwetok Island, attached to Communications Security Detachment 1, 8607th Army Administrative Unit, Vint Hill Farms Station, Warrenton, VA. He arrived on 19 August 1952 and departed from the atoll on 6 November 1952. 7. An Army branch denotes membership in a particular area of expertise and series of functional areas. Some Army branches include Infantry, Armor, Special Forces, Aviation, Engineer, Field Artillery, Military Police, Signal Corps, and Military Intelligence. Assignment to a branch usually correlates to one’s MOS. 8. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-1 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) does not show the 354th Communications Reconnaissance Company, Communications Security Detachment 1, or any other ASA unit other than ASA, Pacific (Advance) (for campaign dates October through November 1950 and July 1951) received any unit awards or campaign participation credit. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. He contends his branch was not Signal Corps and his DD Form 214 should show his branch as Army Security Agency. 2. The Army Security Agency was an Army unit, not an Army branch, and it cannot be determined if he was assigned to the Army Security Agency at the time he separated. 3. It cannot be determined what the applicant’s MOS was. However, assignment to a branch usually correlates to one’s MOS. The applicant completed Signal training and it appears the training course (High Speed Radio Operator) was a Signal MOS. There is no evidence of record and he provided no evidence which shows his branch was anything other than Signal. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence with which to base amending item 4 of his DD Form 214. 4. There is no evidence to show he is authorized any unit award. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ___X ___ ____X___ 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110022481 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110022481 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1