ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	

	BOARD DATE:  23 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190005033


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction 
of Military Records (ABCMR) decision as promulgated in Docket Number 
AR20130015269 on 27 May 2014.  Specifically, she requests correction of her 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) by removing the 
entry "Misconduct – Fraudulent Entry."

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) with self-authored statement
*	numerous documents contained in her official military personnel file
*	newspaper article titled "Investigation uncovers fraud in Army recruiting 
practices," dated 19 November 1979
*	New York Times article titled "Recruiting Ousters By Army Total 427," dated 
20 November 1979

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number 
AR20130015269 on 27 May 2014.

2.  The applicant states she was a single mother at the time she enlisted in the military.   
She joined the Army to be able to provide for her child.  After completing basic training 
and schooling, she was going to be sent to Germany.  She asked what would happen to 
her son and it was at that point that she was told she would have to fight against the 
recruiter or go home.  She excelled in the military and was a good Soldier, it hurt her to 
have to make the decision to leave.  She was honest about the fact that she was a 
single parent.  The military was recruiting illegally and was reprimanded for the 
situation, it was called the "Connelly Investigation."

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1979.

4.  A DD Form 1966 (Application for Enlistment – Armed Forces of the United States), 
dated 27 August 1979, shows the applicant indicated in:

	a.  Item 10 (Number of Dependents), she had no dependents.

	b.  Item 29e (Marital Status and Dependency), the answer "No" to the question "Is 
any person dependent on you for support?"

	c.  Item 30 (Relatives), she listed her parents but left the "Children" portion blank.

5.  The applicant reviewed and certified the DD Form 1966 on 1 October 1979, 
indicating the information contained in the DD Form 1966 was correct and true to the 
best of her knowledge.

6.  A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 9 January 1980, indicates the applicant 
was suspected of fraudulent enlistment.  The command was contemplating action for 
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – 
Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 14, paragraph 14-4g, due to concealment of dependency.

7.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 14 January 1980 of 
her intent to initiate separation actions against her under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-4, for fraudulent entry due to 
concealment of dependency.

8.  The applicant consulted with counsel on 15 January 1980 and acknowledged that 
she had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to accomplish 
her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, and its 
effects; the rights available to her; and the effect of any action taken by her in waiving 
her rights.

	a.  She acknowledged her understanding that if she was being considered for 
separation because of fraudulent entry, and she was not being considered for a 
discharge under other than honorable conditions, she would not have her case 
considered by a board of officers and she would not have a right to counsel for 
representation.

	b.  She elected not to provide a statement in her own behalf; however, in a sworn 
statement dated 16 January 1980, she noted she took her entrance exam in Colorado 
Springs, CO on 11 July 1979.  She then moved back to Denver and changed her mind 
about joining the Army.  A couple of weeks later, she went to see a different recruiter.  
She did not mention what the previous recruiter had told her because she thought he 
would have told her the same thing.  She was under the impression that she could add 
her son to her records after she completed training and he would be able to accompany 
her to her permanent duty station.  She stated that she was unwilling to go anywhere 
without her son and she blamed the first recruiter for not properly explaining the 
situation to her.

9.  The applicant’s chain of command recommended immediate separation and opined 
that the applicant would not be able to successfully fulfill her military responsibilities as a 
sole parent in an overseas command.  The separation authority approved the 
recommended discharge on 11 February 1980 and directed the issuance of a  
DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate).

10.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 15 February 1980, under the provisions 
of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, by reason of misconduct – fraudulent entry.  
Her Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code was "YKG."

11.  The applicant provides two newspaper articles, which state in pertinent part, that an 
estimated 12,700 Soldiers had been enlisted through fraud or other irregular procedures 
by recruiters since October 1977.  Cases involved coaching for enlistment tests, 
concealment of police records, medical problems, and dependents.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents and 
evidence in the records.  The Board considered the applicant’s statement, her record of 
service, the entries on her enlistment forms, the newspaper articles she provided, the 
reason for her separation and the character of service she received.  The Board found 
that the applicant indicated no dependent children when she enlisted, but considered, 
based on her sworn statement, that she may have been coached regarding the entries 
on the forms.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the 
reason for her separation was unjust and required correction.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
partial relief was warranted.


BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

: X	:X	:X              GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of 
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by the DD Form 214 for the 
period of service ending 15 February 1980 to reflect in item 25 (Separation Authority) – 
“AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-14” and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – 
“Miscellaneous/General Reasons” with the corresponding Separation Code.



	  
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.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

Not Applicable



REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military 
records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  
This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely 
file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in 
the interest of justice to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides 
that separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons 
for and types of separation from active duty.  Separation code narrative reasons are 
aligned with applicable regulatory authority paragraphs.  The separation code "YKG" is 
the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, by narrative reason of fraudulent entry.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time, provided that a fraudulent entry was the 
procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or period of active service through any 
deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of information which, if 
known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment or reenlistment, might have 
resulted in rejection.  For members separated under this chapter, the fraudulent entry 
was to be voided by issuing orders releasing the member from Army control for 
fraudulent entry in all cases involving alleged or verified connivance by recruiting 
officials.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190005033

4

1