BOARD DATE: 2 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017351 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ ___x_____ __x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 2 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017351 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. BOARD DATE: 2 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150017351 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, in effect, correction of her record to show her foreign service in Southwest Asia (SWA) in support of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. 2. The applicant states she deployed and participated in Operation Desert Storm. 3. The applicant provides: * Orders Number 275-094, dated 2 October 1990 * Orders Number 210-01, dated 12 November 1990 * Memorandum, dated 27 December 1990 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 enlisted in the Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG) on 14 June 1988. Upon completion of split initial entry training, she was awarded military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist) on 12 August 1989. 3. The applicant was ordered to active duty and entered active duty on 27 September 1990. Her records contain or she provided: * Orders 275-094, dated 2 October 1990 (a group/unit order), which attached the applicant's unit to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 10th Aviation Regiment, effective 29 September 1990 * Orders 210-01, dated 12 November 1990 (a group/unit order), which directed the applicant's unit on temporary change of station orders to SWA with assignment to U.S. Army Central Command (Forward) effective 12 November 1990 * Memorandum, dated 27 December 1990, which shows she was returned from SWA due to pregnancy; no date of return is shown * Orders 007-060, dated 7 January 1991, which released her from active duty (REFRAD) effective 7 January 1991 5. On 7 January 1991, the applicant was REFRAD and transferred to the ALARNG. The DD Form 214 issued to her at that time is not on file. However, a DD Form 214 was administratively reissued on 8 June 1992 and it shows the following: a.  item 12c (Net Active Service This Period), 3 months and 11 days; b.  item 12f (Foreign Service) – the entry "00  00  00"; c.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized): * National Defense Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Southwest Asia Service Medal with one bronze service star * Kuwait Liberation Medal [no country identified] * "ALB" [unknown award abbreviation] d.  item 18 (Remarks) – includes the entry "INDIVIDUAL DID NOT DEPLOY TO SWA"; and e.  item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – contains the entry "DIRECTED BY SERVICE SECRETARY." 6. Her official military personnel file (OMPF) contains: a. A DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) that contains no foreign service in item 5 (Overseas Service). b. A document titled "Results of Desert Shield/Storm Database Inquiry" which shows the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) database did not have a record showing the applicant performed service in SWA. 7. A review of the Gulf War Roster produced no record showing the applicant deployed to SWA. 8. By email, an official from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) affirmed the DFAS database had no record showing the applicant was paid hostile fire/imminent danger pay and combat zone tax exclusion for service in SWA. The official indicated DFAS's earliest records from the Gulf-War Era were dated from 1992 forward. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) prescribes policy and gives guidance for the completion of the DD Form 214. It states, in pertinent part: a. Item 12f will show the total amount of foreign service performed during the period covered by block 12c (Net Active Service This Period). b. Item 18 states, for Soldiers who deployed with his or her unit during their continuous period of active service, enter a statement "SERVICE IN (name of country deployed) FROM (inclusive dates for example, YYYYMMDD-YYYYMMDD)." 2. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes policies and procedures for military awards. The Southwest Asia Service Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States serving in SWA and contiguous waters or airspace there over, on or after 2 August 1990 to 30 November 1995. A bronze service star is authorized for wear with this medal for participation in each credited campaign. a. To be eligible, a service member must meet one or more of the following criteria: * be attached to or regularly serving for one or more days with an organization participating in ground or shore (military) operations * be serving on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days; these time limitations may be waived for people participating in actual combat operations b. Approved designated campaigns include the Defense of Saudi Arabia (2 August 1990 to 16 January 1991). 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. a. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. b. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests correction of her record to show her deployment to SWA during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Her OMPF contains conflicting evidence with regard to whether or not she deployed to SWA. 2. Her OMPF contains and she provides official orders directing her unit's deployment to SWA in November 1990. However, the unit orders alone do not support a conclusion that she physically deployed with her unit to SWA in support of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. The orders do not, on their own, confirm that she actually deployed with the unit. 3. The evidence of record does include a memorandum dated 27 December 1990, which shows she was non-deployable and was returned from SWA due to pregnancy. This indicates she did deploy to SWA for a brief period. In addition, a replacement DD Form 214 issued 17 months after her REFRAD on 28 June 1992, shows she received the Southwest Asia Service Medal with one bronze service star and the Kuwait Liberation Medal, which are indicative of SWA service. However, item 18 of her DD Form 214 specifically states "INDIVIDUAL DID NOT DEPLOY TO SWA." 4. There are two important sources typically used for verifying Soldiers deployments during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. * the DMDC database shows Soldiers who deployed in support of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm and it does not list her name * DFAS has no record she received hostile fire/imminent danger pay and combat zone tax exclusion – DFAS is routinely used to validate a Soldier's service in a hostile fire zone and the duration of deployment based on their pay record, though in this case, it appears that there would no longer be a DFAS record due to the passage of time 5. If the Board determines that a preponderance of the evidence supports a conclusion that she deployed to SWA, it appears the only available relief would be to delete the entry "INDIVIDUAL DID NOT DEPLOY TO SWA" from her DD Form 214. In the absence of documentation showing actual dates of deployment there is no evidentiary basis for making an accurate statement of a period of deployment on her DD Form 214. //NOTHING FOLLOWS ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS9 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017351 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150017351 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2