IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 11 October 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220012100 APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) to show his primary specialty as 13B, Field Artillery, Cannon Crewmember vice 71B, Clerk Typist. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Continuation Statement * DD Form 214, 14 June 1968 * Enlistment Record, 16 June 1965 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states there is an error on his DD Form 214. He wants MOS 71B removed and MOS 13B, Field Artillery added. He performed duties in MOS 13B for 3 years. In the early 1960s, due to wartime, misprints or mistakes were common. Because of the confusion, frustration, and stress of war, he is hoping the Board can resolve this issue. a. The mistake of identity between 71B vs 13B, has become a critical situation. He is asking that this title 71B Clerk Typist be removed and replaced with 13B Infantry field artillery soldier. The duties he performed during his entire military career for the three (3) years as an artilleryman Soldier. In 1965, he was assigned to 8th U.S. Army Camp Snow in Korea. His last duty assignment 1967 was at Fort Sill, OK, Infantry Field Artillery Mobile Unit, 2nd Battalion, 1st Field Artillery. Clerk Typist 71B is presently on his DD Form 214 form. It is a very misleading mistake plus it is probably causing some concern why his medical benefit compensation injuries claims were denied. This mistake of 71B may have had a negative influence that could have caused some confusion or misinterpretation for VA Claim Examiner evaluation of his claims for injuries and suffering from artillery field training events such as frostbite, toes and feet, hearing loss and tinnitus, that were caused by loud cannon noise exposure and cold weather field training events. b. He never serviced as a Clerk Typist or performed any type of clerical tasks. The military department of records or the artilleries united that he serviced with does not have any clerical records or show any proof that he serviced as a typist. He just wants to reiterate for emphasis and clarity while serving in the army, he never served in the capacity of 71B Clerk Typist. 3. The applicant’s service records are not available for review. An exhaustive search was conducted to locate his service records, which are necessary in the processing of his case, but they could not be found. The applicant provides sufficient documents for the Board to conduct a fair and impartial review of his case. 4. The applicant’s DD Form 214 and Enlistment Contract show: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 June 1965. His DD Form 4 (Enlistment Record) shows in Block 13 (Initial Assignment) the entry 8th U.S. Army (Korea). b. He was honorably released from active duty, in the rank/grade of specialist five (SP5)/E-5 on 14 June 1968 due to expiration of his term of service. His DD Form 214 shows: * he completed 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days of active service * his last unit of assignment was 2nd Battalion, 1st Artillery, Fourth U.S. Army, Fort Sill, OK * Block 23a (Specialty Number and Title) 71B, Clerk Typist * Block 25 (Education and Training Completed) Battle Indoctrination, Code of Conduct, Military Justice, and Nonjudicial Punishment 5. There is no indication in the available record what formal training the applicant completed and/or what military occupational specialty he was awarded. 6. Bu regulation (AR 15-185), the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. 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. 7. By regulation (AR 635-5), Block 23a shows the primary specialty code number and title and item 25 shows the education and training completed by the Soldier. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition and available military records the Board determined there is a lack of evidence to support the applicant received formal training and was awarded the 13B military occupational specialty (MOS). The Board found his official military personnel record does not contain permanent orders awarding him a new or secondary MOS for 13B. However, during deliberation the Board determined the applicant's service record did not reflect he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) and his record shows he received "excellent" conduct and efficiency ratings throughout his service for the period of 16 June 1965 to 14 June 1968. Based on this the Board granted partial relief for correction of the applicant’s record to show award of the Army Good Conduct Medal. 2. The Board agreed that the burden of proof rest with the applicant; however, he did not provide any supporting documentation and his service record has insufficient evidence to support the applicant contentions that he was awarded the military occupational specialty of 13B. 3. The Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records for historical purposes. The information in those records must reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created. In the absence of evidence that shows a material error or injustice, there is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed. The applicant is advised that a copy of this decisional document, along with his application and the supporting evidence in the record, will be filed in his official military records 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: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for exemplary service from 16 June 1965 to 14 June 1968 and adding the medal to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 June 1968. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correction of the applicant’s DD Form 214 to show his primary specialty as 13B, Field Artillery, Cannon Crewmember vice 71B, Clerk Typist. 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. REFERENCES: 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 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. 2. 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. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. 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. 3. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. Chapter 2 of the regulation in effect at the time contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214. It stated, in pertinent part, that item 23a shows the PMOS code number and title and item 25 shows the education and training completed by the Soldier. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220012100 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1