RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:

      BOARD DATE:        23 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040003060


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen Newman               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Marla Troup                   |     |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 correction of his records to show that he was
entitled to lost pay and allowances due to the fact that he did not receive
a physical evaluation board (PEB) or a line of duty (LOD) investigation was
not conducted until after his heart attack, which he suffered while
attending annual training (AT).

2.  The applicant states that on 17 August 2001, he suffered a heart attack
while on active duty for training (ADT) and was admitted to the Carthage
Area Hospital in Carthage, New York.  He was transferred by ambulance from
Fort Drum to Saint Elizabeth Medical Center in Utica, New York for surgery.
 Upon his release, he returned home and his ADT orders were not modified.
His orders were treated as if he had completed regular ADT.  No medical
evaluation board (MEB)/PEB or LOD was requested nor was he evaluated by the
U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) for fitness to return to his Reserve status.  He
felt that he should have remained on active duty (AD) until his fitness for
duty and LOD was completed.

3.  In October 2001, he provided a medical statement from his private
physician stating that he was qualified to return to a drilling status with
restrictions.  He drilled in October, November, and December performing his
regular military duties.  In January 2002, he received a telephone call
from the Reserve Center Medical Department (RCMD) notifying him that they
had found him not physically qualified to drill.  He requested that they
review the letter from his private physician.  The RCMD requested that he
be seen by a military physician; however, they did not schedule an
appointment with medical authorities to determine his status. 

4.  He was unable to drill from January until September 2002 and during
that time he received no information from the RCMD regarding the matter.
He contacted the Office of the Inspector General (IG) via telephone to
inquire why no MEB/PEB had been completed nor a LOD conducted.  The LOD
began in October 2002 and was completed on 27 December 2002 per verbal
orders.  In October 2002, his unit commander contacted him and informed
him to return to a drilling status.  He drilled from October through
December 2002. 

5.  In December 2002, he was told to request transfer to the Retired
Reserve, which he did.  He later learned that he did not have to and the
orders were rescinded.  It took 4 months to revoke those orders and he lost
an additional 3 months of drill pay.   In April 2003, he was transferred to
the Retired Reserve due to his twice nonselection for promotion to LTC. 


6.  He also states that due to improper processing of his documents, he
lost monies due to not being able to drill and missed one ADT during this
period.  He felt that he should have remained on AD until a PEB or LOD was
completed and he should have been paid for that time.  He could have been
assessed for placement on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) and
received monetary payment from an earlier medical retirement.

7.  In conclusion, he stated that he felt that he should not have been
financially penalized for errors made by his Reserve unit and higher
headquarters.

8.  The applicant provides several documents in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that he was appointed as a
Reserve commissioned officer in the Army Nurse Corps (ANC) in the rank of
second lieutenant (2LT/O-1) on 20 February 1981, in Area of Concentration
(AOC) 66H, at the age of 37, with prior enlisted service.  His date of
birth (DOB) is 27 January 1944 with a mandatory removal dated (MRD) of
31 January 2004, at the age of 60.

2.  He was promoted to major (MAJ/O-4) effective 17 February 1995.

3.  On 18 August 1995, the Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN)
notified the applicant that he had completed the required years of service
to be eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60 (20-Year Letter).

4.  On 1 June 2001, the applicant underwent an over 40 medical examination
and was found qualified for retention with a 111111 physical profile with
no medical conditions warranting a "physical profile."  He was also found
to be in good physical health and fit for duty.  His examination included a
copy of his Electrocardiogram (EKG), dated 23 May 2001, with a reading of
"Normal Sinus Rhythm (NSR) with ST abnormality, possible digital effect."

5.  The applicant was ordered to AD for AT for a period of 14 days at Fort
Drum, New York, with a reporting date of 11 August 2001.

6.  The applicant provides medical evidence that shows that he was admitted
to Carthage Area Hospital on 17 August 2001.  He was diagnosed as having
chest pains with a history of reflux disease.  His final diagnosis was
determined to be coronary artery disease with possible acute inferior wall
myocardial infarction.
On that same day, he was transferred to Saint Elizabeth Medical Center
where he remained until he was discharged on 20 August 2001.  His final
diagnoses were coronary artery disease, status post non-Q wave myocardial
infarction, moderate left ventricular dysfunction, hyperlipidemia, and a
history of gastric ulcers. 

7.  The applicant provides a copy of a DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical
Examination Duty Status), dated 19 August 2001, which was prepared by his
commander.  This form shows that he was treated at Carthage Area Hospital
on 17 August 2001 for a cardiac arrest.  It also shows that he was mentally
sound, he had an injury not likely to result in a claim against the
government for future medical care, and his injury was considered to have
been incurred in the LOD.

8.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from his civilian
cardiologist, dated 12 October 2001.  He stated that the applicant was a
57 year old patient of his who had been seen since he suffered a myocardial
infarction.  He underwent heart catheterization in August which was treated
with angioplasty.  On follow-up evaluation he had no chest discomfort and
on stress-Cardiolite testing on 13 September 2001 there was no evidence for
residual ischernia.  He also stated, as such, that he felt the applicant
was an acceptable risk to resume full activity with no restrictions.  He
further stated that he would need to remain on a number of chronic
medications, but they should not interfere with duties or physical
activities.

9.  The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to
lieutenant colonel by the 2001 and 2002 Reserve Components Selection Boards
(RCSB).

10.  On 24 October 2002, an investigating officer was appointed pursuant to
Army Regulation 600-8-1 to perform a formal LOD investigation to determine
the details pertaining to the applicant's disease.  The investigating
officer concluded that the applicant's disease was in the line of duty.

11.  On 27 December 2002, a review of the LOD determination of "In Line of
Duty" was conducted.  A medical corps (MC) officer from the 348th General
Hospital performed a review of the records and he opined that the records
supported the diagnosis of the applicant suffering a myocardial infarction.
12.  On 3 January 2003, the Commander, Headquarters, 7th Legal Support
Organization, at the request of the 8th Medical Brigade, reviewed the LOD
findings and recommendations of the investigating officer, and found that
the report was legally sufficient.  The findings and recommendation of "In
Line of Duty" were supported by the weight of evidence.

13.  On 27 January 2003, the applicant elected transfer to the Retired
Reserve based on his nonselection, for promotion to LTC.

14.  On 11 February 2003, the LODI was reviewed by an Attorney-Advisor on
the staff of Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) and was found to be legally
sufficient.  The Attorney-Advisor stated that the evidence supported the
findings of the investigation.

15.  On 12 February 2003, orders were published releasing the applicant
from his troop program unit (TPU), of the USAR, and he was assigned to the
Retired Reserve effective 15 December 2002, due to completion of 20 years
or more of qualifying service for Retired Pay at age 60.  On 27 March 2003,
those orders were revoked.

16.  On 30 May 2003, the IG responded to a telephone call that the
applicant made to the 77th Regional Support Command IG concerning his LOD,
incapacitation pay and retirement orders.  A thorough inquiry was conducted
regarding his request.  It was determined that the correct effective date
of his retirement order was 1 April 2003.  The LOD was completed on
23 December 2002.  The IG informed the applicant that they were still in
the process of following up with his unit on incapacitation pay.  On
25 July 2003, the applicant was informed that the IG was still working on
the issue of incapacitation pay.

17.  On 25 September 2003, the applicant was placed on the Retired List
effective 27 January 2004, in the rank of major at age 60.

18.  On 18 May 2004, the applicant was advised by the IG to apply to this
Board to determine his eligibility for incapacitation pay.

19.  The applicant's Statement of Retirement Points shows that he completed
27 years of qualifying service for retirement purposes. 

20.  The applicant provided several copies of his leave and earning
statements (LESs).  His LESs for the period January through September 2002
and for the period December 2002 through March 2003 show that he received
no drill pay.


21.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was provided
by Headquarters, United States Army Reserve Command (USARC).  The opinion
stated that the applicant believed that he should have remained on AD for
the completion of his LODI and PEB following a heart attack that he
suffered while on AT.  He further stated that he was not allowed to perform
inactive duty for training (IDT) for a total of 12 months after his heart
attack.  The applicant requested monetary compensation for all the missed
duty time, including a second AT that he would have performed had he been
allowed.  The applicant was ordered to AT with a report date of 11 August
2001.  He reported for duty and performed duty through 17 August 2001, at
which time he had a heart attack and was hospitalized.  He was discharged
from the hospital on 20 August 2001 and returned home; however, he received
payment for duty through 24 August 2001.  Payment for duty from 21-
24 August 2001 should be recouped. 

22.  The opinion stated that although the applicant was correct in his
assertion that the LODI should have been completed at the time of his heart
attack, it was not necessary for a Soldier to remain in an active duty
status for completion of a LODI.  Once the informal LODI was initiated and
the appropriate evidence was attached, it became an administrative process.

23.  After the unit returned from AT, the applicant's commander should have
referred him for an MEB to determine if he was able to perform his normal
duties. A PEB required a referral from a MEB in accordance with Army
Regulation
635-40.  The applicant's assertions that he should have remained on AD for
the processing of the PEB are incorrect.  In accordance with Army
Regulation, orders of Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers who incur a
disability while performing IDT or AD for 30 days or less would not be
revoked, amended, or extended past the date specified in the orders
directing such active duty for the sole purpose of processing under this
regulation.

24.  The applicant's assertion that he should have been assessed for TDRL
cannot be ascertained; however, this was highly improbable.  In order for
this action to have occurred, a PEB would have to find the applicant unfit
for duty.  In accordance with Army Regulation 635-40, the Soldier must be
unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating at the
time of the evaluation.  The applicant provided a letter from his own
physician stating he was able to perform duty and he subsequently performed
duty.  It is probable that he would not have been found unfit for duty.




25.  The opinion stated that regarding the applicant’s allegation that he
was not allowed to perform IDT for 12 months, to include a tour of AT,
and that there was no supporting documentation to refute or substantiate
this.  Careful examination was conducted of the applicant’s past IDT and
AT performance.  The examination
revealed continued participation and supports the applicant’s assertion
that had be been allowed to performed IDT and AT, he would have done so.
The USARC obtained the training calendar for the 691st Surgical
Detachment for the 2002 and 2003 training years.  The USARC recommended
that the applicant be granted points and compensation as indicated below:



   DATE                      DUTY STATUS           POINTS


      5-6 January 2002       IDT                     4
      9-22 February 2002           AT                    14
      2-3 March 2002         IDT                     4
      6-7 April 2002         IDT                     4
      3-5 May 2002           IDT                     6
      1-2 June 2002          IDT                     4
      13-14 July 2002        IDT                     4
      2-4 August 2002        IDT                     6
      7 Sep 2002             IDT                     2
      11-12 January 2003          IDT                      4
      19-27 January 2003          AT                     15
      8-9 February 2003           IDT                      4
      8-9 March 2003         IDT                     4

                             Total                       75

26.  The applicant was provided a copy of the opinion for possible comment
prior to consideration of his case.

27.  In his rebuttal, the applicant stated that he reported for duty and
performed duty through 17 August 2001, at which time he had a heart attack.
 He was discharged from the hospital on 20 August 2001 and was paid through
24 August 2001.  The author of the advisory opinion advised that payment he
received for the period 21-24 August 2001 should be recouped.  He disagrees
with this.  He states that he would have been returned to a holding area on
limited duty if he had a physical injury, such as a sprained ankle.  Due to
the potential of further complications of a heart attack and his unit
participating in a tactical exercise, his commander ordered him to
convalesce at home.



28.  His commander did not see fit to recoup his pay, which he probably
could have.  According to the advisory opinion, orders of RC Soldiers who
incur a disability while performing IDT or AD for 30 days or less would not
be revoked, amended, or extended past the date specified in the orders
directing such AD for the sole purpose of processing under this regulation.
 He believed the word
"amended" as the same for "recouping."  He also thought that the opinion of
his missed IDT and AD that were listed were inaccurate and did not include
missed drill dates he had included with his application to the Board that
he initially sent in. 

29.  The opinion also had 2 missing IDT dates.  He missed 2 ATs, one AT in
fiscal year (FY) 2002 and one in FY 2003.  He attempted to retrieve these
training calendars from the 691st Forward Support Team (FST) but the staff
administrator (SA) for the unit had been activated and no one else at the
Reserve Center knows where they may be located.  He states that some months
of his IDTs were multiple unit training assemblies (MUTA), 6.  He felt that
he had missed at least 68 MUTAs and two ATs of 14 days each.  He states he
was a good Soldier and felt that he should be compensated.  His LESs
substantiate that he received no drill pay for January through September
2002 and no drill pay for December 2002 through March 2003.  He was
officially transferred to the Retired Reserve on 1 April 2003.

30.  The applicant provides an additional statement to his application on
11 August 2005.  He states that he reviewed his LESs and the advisory
opinion with the attached training calendar.  He concurred with the drill
dates and AT and felt that he should be paid for and awarded 60 additional
retirement points.  He provides another additional statement on 22 August
2005.  He indicated that he wanted to disregard the issue regarding
incapacitation pay and that he should be paid for AT for a period of
14 days from 15 to 28 February 2003.  However, he provides no documentation
for these dates.

31.  On 22 August 2005, the author of the advisory opinion provides an
additional copy of a training calendar for the 8th Medical Brigade, 691st
Surgical Detachment for the 2003 training year.  It indicates that the
applicant's unit, the  691st Surgical Detachment, performed AT for a period
of 15 days from 19 January to 2 February 2003.  On 22 August 2005, the
applicant concurred with the dates indicated on the training calendar.





32.  Army Regulation 135-155 prescribes the policies and procedures for
promotion of Reserve officers.  The regulation provides that mandatory
selection boards will be convened each year to consider Reserve Component
officers in an active status for promotion to captain through lieutenant
colonel.  The regulation provides that in order to be qualified for
promotion to lieutenant colonel an individual must have completed 50
percent of the Command and General Staff College (CGSC), 7 years of time in
grade (TIG) as a major, and an officer advanced course (OAC) on or before
the convening date of the respective promotion board.

33.  Army Regulation 140-10 sets forth the basic authority for the
assignment, attachment, detail, and transfer of USAR Soldiers.  Chapter 7
of the regulation relates to the removal of Soldiers from an active status
and states, in pertinent part, that Soldiers removed from an active status
will be discharged or, if qualified and if they so request, will be
transferred to the Retired Reserve. 

34.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability
evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures
that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical
disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or
rating.  It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to
document a Soldier's medical status
and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.
A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention
based on the criteria in AR 40-501, chapter 3.  If the MEB determines the
Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend
referral of the Soldier to a PEB.

35.  Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of
physical disability equitability for the Soldier and the Army.  It is a
fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity,
and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers who are referred to
the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the Soldier against the
physical requirements of the Soldier's particular office, grade, rank or
rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the Soldier; and to make
findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a Soldier to be
separated or retired because of physical disability.

36.  Paragraph 3-9 of the same regulation stated that a Soldier must be
unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating at
the time of evaluation.



37.  Paragraph 8-5 states that orders of RC Soldiers who incur a disability
while performing IDT or AD for 30 days or less will not be revoked, amended
or extended past the date specified in the orders directing such active
duty for the sole purpose of processing under this regulation.   However,
the Soldier may be eligible to receive medical care and evaluation. The
Soldier may also be entitled to receive incapacitation pay until final
disposition

38.  Paragraph 8-6 pertains to medical processing.  It states that when a
commander or other proper authority believes that a Soldier not on extended
active duty is unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade,
rank, or rating because of physical disability, the commander will refer
the Soldier for medical evaluation according to Army Regulation 40-501 or
National Guard Regulation 40-3.  Conduct of MEB and referral of case to a
PEB will be according to the procedures of chapter 4.  If the Soldier is
not eligible for referral to a PEB, the medical troop facility (MTF) will
forward the MEB to the Soldier's unit commander for disposition under
applicable regulations.

39.  Army Regulation 135-381 and title 37, U.S Code, provides for
continuation of pay and allowances under certain circumstances to
reservists who are disabled in the line of duty as a direct performance of
their duties.  To receive continuation pay, referred to a as incapacitation
pay, reservists must either be unable to perform their normal military
duties or be able to show a loss of nonmilitary income.  If the reservist
continues to work at his or her civilian job, the amount of money earned is
deducted from the incapacitation pay.  Entitlement to incapacitation pay is
limited to 6 months unless the Secretary of the Army finds that it is
clearly in the interest of fairness and equity to extend the incapacitation
pay.  Only in the most meritorious cases will incapacitation pay be
extended past the 6-month limitation.  Incapacitation payments are made by
the serving Army finance and accounting office.

40.  Army Regulation 140-185 (Training and Retirement Point Credits and
Unit Level Strength Accounting Records) provides the policy for training
and retirement point credits for members of the USAR.  It prescribes the
types of training and activities for which retirement points are
authorized.  It discusses the procedures for recording retirement point
credits and training for USAR Soldiers. It states, in pertinent part, that
the maximum for IDT and membership is 60 points.  Annual or Terminal
Statement of Retirement Points will report all points earned.  Individuals
will be awarded 15 membership points for each year in an active status.  It
further states that personnel on AD, active duty training (ADT), inactive
duty for training (IADT), involuntary ADT, or AT are awarded 1 point for
each calendar day they serve in one of these categories and may not be
awarded additional points for other activities while in such status.  The
following rules apply:  (1) One point will be awarded for each scheduled 4-
hour period of IDT with a maximum of 2 points in 1 calendar day; (2) One
point for each 2 hour or greater period with a maximum of 1 point in 1
calendar day; and (3) One point for each 2 hour or greater period under the
two/eight-hour rule.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant was attending AT for a period of
14 days from 11 August to 24 August 2001.  He performed duty through
17 August 2001, at which time he had a heart attack and was admitted to the
hospital.  He was discharged on 20 August 2001 and returned home and
received payment for duty through 24 August 2001.

2.  The applicant's commander, who had the authority to recoup the
applicant' pay for the period 21 through 24 August 2001, chose not to do
so.  The applicant was ordered to convalesce at home due to the recently
experienced heart attack and because his unit was participating in a
tactical exercise.  The author of the advisory opinion suggested that pay
for the period 21 through 24 August 2001 be recouped.  However, compassion
for the Soldier, concern for his health, and the unit's involvement in a
tactical exercise dictated the actions that the commander took, to include
not recouping the applicant's pay for that period.  Therefore, recoupment
of the applicant's pay for the period 21 through 24 August 2001 should be
waived.

3.  The applicant's orders were not modified and were treated as if he had
completed regular ADT.  At the time, no MEB/PEB or LOD was requested nor
was he evaluated by medical authorities for fitness to return to his
Reserve status.  He felt that he should have remained on AD until his
fitness for duty and LOD was completed.

4.  The applicant is correct in his assertion that his LODI should have
been completed at the time of heart attack; however, according to
regulation, it is not necessary for a Soldier to remain in an active status
for completion of a LODI.  Once the informal LODI is initiated and the
appropriate evidence is attached, the LODI becomes an administrative
process.

5.  The applicant asserts that he should have been referred for an MEB to
determine if he was able to perform his normal duties with referral to a
PEB in accordance with regulation.  However, his assertions that he should
have remained on AD for the processing of the PEB are incorrect.  It is
noted that, in accordance with regulation, orders of RC Soldiers who incur
a disability while performing IDT or AD for 30 days or less will not be
revoked, amended, or extended past the date specified in the orders
directing such AD.

6.  The applicant's assertion that he should have been assessed for TDRL
could not be ascertained but was highly improbable.  However, in order for
this action to have occurred, a PEB would have to find him unfit for duty
in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40.  It is noted that the applicant
brought in a letter from his own physician stating that he was able to
perform duty and subsequently performed duty.  Based on this information,
it is probable that he would not have been found unfit for duty.

7.  The applicant was properly considered for promotion by the 2001 and
2002 RCSB’s but was not selected and later elected transfer to the Retired
Reserve based on his nonselection for promotion.

8.  A formal LODI was conducted to obtain details pertaining to the disease
sustained by the applicant.  It was concluded that his disease was in line
of duty and was reviewed by a MC officer from the 348th General Hospital
who supported the diagnosis.  The LODI was later reviewed by the 7th Legal
Support Organization who found the report legally sufficient.  The findings
and recommendation of "In Line of Duty" were supported by the weight of the
evidence.  A review was later conducted by the SJA who supported the
findings of the investigation.

9.  The applicant inquired to the IG in regards to his LOD, incapacitation
pay, and retirement orders.  His retirement orders were corrected and it
was determined that his correct retirement date was 1 April 2003.  He was
informed that his LOD was completed and that his request for incapacitation
pay was pending.  He was placed on the Retired List effective 27 January
2004, in the rank of major at the age of 60.  He was later informed to
apply to this Board for relief to determine his eligibility for
incapacitation pay.

10.  The applicant alleged that he was not allowed to perform IDT for 12
months, to include a tour of AT.  There was no supporting documentation to
refute or substantiate his claim.  An examination was conducted by the
USARC into his past IDT an AT performances which revealed that he continued
participation and supported his assertion that had he been allowed to
perform IDT and AT, he would have done so.

11.  The evidence shows that training calendars were obtained for the 691st
Surgical Detachment for the 2002 and 2003 training years and the USARC
recommended that the applicant be granted points and compensation.



12.  The applicant later responded and disagreed with the recommendations
of the USARC regarding his missed drills and compensation and requested
that the issue of incapacitation pay be disregarded.  He requested that he
be paid for AT for the period 15 to 28 February 2003.

13.  The author of the advisory opinion provided an additional copy of a
training calendar for the, 8th Medical Brigade, 691st Surgical Detachment
for the 2003 training year.  It indicated that the applicant's unit
performed AT for a period of 15 days from 19 January to 2 February 2003.
Therefore, in view of this evidence, it is determined that had he been
allowed to perform AT for this period, he would have done so.  Therefore,
he should be granted points and compensation for the period 19 January to
2 February 2003.

14.  Based on the evidence, and recommendations from the USARC, it would
now be fair and equitable to grant the applicant's request for lost pay and
allowances for his missed drills and AT and award him additional retirement
points for the missed drills listed below:

      DATE                        DUTY STATUS      POINTS


      5-6 January 2002            IDT                      4
      9-22 February 2002                 AT                    14
      2-3 March 2002              IDT                      4
      6-7 April 2002              IDT                      4
      3-5 May 2002                IDT                      6
      1-2 June 2002               IDT                      4
      13-14 July 2002             IDT                      4
      2-4 August 2002             IDT                      6
      7 Sep 2002                  IDT                      2
      11-12 January 2003                IDT                      4
      19 January to 2 February 2003      AT                    15
      8-9 February 2003                 IDT                      4
      8-9 March 2003              IDT                      4

                                  Total                  75

15.  The evidence shows that the applicant is now entitled to 75 additional
retirement points for his missed drills and AT.  After redistribution of
his 75 additional retirement points, a corrected statement of retirement
points should be issued to the applicant.



BOARD VOTE:

_KAN___  __WDP__  _T _____  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was 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:

     a. by compensating him for all back pay, allowances and retirement
        points for his missed IDT and AT drills listed below:

      DATE                        DUTY STATUS      POINTS


      5-6 January 2002            IDT                      4
      9-22 February 2002                 AT                    14
      2-3 March 2002              IDT                      4
      6-7 April 2002              IDT                      4
      3-5 May 2002                IDT                      6
      1-2 June 2002               IDT                      4
      13-14 July 2002             IDT                      4
      2-4 August 2002             IDT                      6
      7 Sep 2002                  IDT                      2
      11-12 January 2003                IDT                      4
      19 January to 2 February 2003      AT                    15
      8-9 February 2003                 IDT                      4
      8-9 March 2003              IDT                      4

                                  Total                  75
      b.  by awarding him the retirement points for those missed drills
reflected in paragraph a above in the appropriate Retirement years.


2.  That upon completion of the administrative action required by Paragraph
1b, above, that the Army Human Resources Command (AHRC)–St. Louis
recalculate the retirement points of the individual concerned, issue him a
corrected Chronological Statement of Retirement Points.




                                  __Kathleen Newman_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040003060                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050825                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 140-10                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |128                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

-----------------------
[pic]

[pic]