RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:    .


      BOARD DATE:       18 November 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004101066


      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             |
|     |Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James C. Hise                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.            |     |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, in effect, upgrade of his general discharge
from the California Army National Guard (CAARNG) and as a Reserve of the
Army and transfer to the Army Reserve (USAR).  He also requests
reconsideration of his earlier appeal to reinstate his commission that he
lost when he was separated from the Washington Army National Guard (WAARNG)
with a general discharge. Additionally, he requests that a consolidated
permanent order be issued to authorize the awards listed by the National
Personnel Records Center [This is, in effect, a request to reconsider his
earlier appeal for award of the Special Forces Tab.]  Finally, he requests
award of the Good Conduct Medal for his initial period of active duty.

      a.  He specifically requests points and pay for lost participation
opportunities for annual training (AT), active duty special work (ADSW),
Temporary active duty (TEMAC), active duty training (ADT), inactive duty
training (IAD), and Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status from 1 November 1997
to the present; promotion to pay grade E-8 and


      b.  He also asks for removal of all documents or any references to
fraudulent enlistment or fraudulent documents from all military records,
including those held by the CAARNG and the Defense Security Service; and
other relief the Board deems appropriate.


      c.  Subsequent to the original application he requested voiding of the
findings and recommendation of a board of officers that resulted from an
Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM) recommendation for elimination
be voided.  He specifically requested reinstatement into the USAR Control
Group, vacation of any administrative proceedings, bars or flags and
removal of any and all references to fraudulent enlistment.  He also asked
for pay and points from 1 November 1997, the date of the CAARNG general
discharge, promotion to master sergeant (E-8) or captain (O-3E), based on
relief in the WAARNG case and whatever else the Board might deem
appropriate.


2.  The applicant states that he received no notice of the pending
separation from the CAARNG.  His due process rights were violated.  He
states that the CAARNG officials told him that the catalyst for the
separation action was the alleged lack of documentation of his enlistment
in the USAR.  He later discovered that they had relied on hearsay and
innuendo from records clerks.  The discharge caused him financial hardship,
affected his security clearance, reserve pay, retirement, promotion and
eligibility for further service.  His integrity was harmed and he lost his
civilian employment.  He was embarrassed, humiliated, inconvenienced and
had to move out of California to find employment.

      a.  He maintains that Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) Orders
C-09-786197 (Enclosure 3) demonstrates that there was no fraudulent
enlistment.  He provided this to the CAARNG and the Staff Judge Advocate
told him that an investigation had revealed that the CAARNG action was an
administrative error and that the documents would be furnished to ARPERCEN.
 Since he no longer lived in California, he would be reassigned to the USAR
Control Group.

      b.  Subsequently, the Human Resources Command (HRC), St Louis
[formerly ARPERCEN and then ARPERSCOM] advised that he was nearing the end
of his enlistment.  His career advisor told him that the CAARNG discharge
had been corrected and that the amended orders were in his Official
Military Personnel File (OMPF).  He "was not made aware that the CAARNG had
failed to correct the discharge and Reentry (Re-3) code as they had advised
would be done."  He received a reenlistment package, which he executed at
the Seattle Military Enlistment Processing Station (MEPS).

3.  With respect to his 11 January 1996 resignation from the WAARNG, he
reports that, on 14 November 1995, he requested immediate release due to
civilian employment conflict.  Then, on 6 January 1996, he was notified of
an investigation into his attendance at a military diving school but he was
given only 5 days to respond and the regulation specifies 10 days.  He
tendered his resignation on 11 January 1996, but contends that his civilian
supervisor pressured him to not participate in the ARNG or the USAR.

      a.  He cites the Army Regulation 135-175 provisions, which provides
that officers separated for substandard performance are to receive an
honorable discharge and that those who lose federal recognition are to be
transferred to the USAR.  He further writes, "It is obvious that the
catalyst behind the action was not personal choice but improper illegal
influence from a civilian employer."


      b.  He contends that the commander was responsible for this and other
pressure and that his resignation was, therefore, not voluntary.


      c.  He specifically requests reinstatement to the USAR Control Group,
pay and points from 24 July 1996, promotion to captain (O-3) with
appropriate time in grade credit, change of the reason for separation to
transfer to the USAR and other relief the board deems appropriate.

4.  Concerning his request about awards, he provides correspondence from
HRC, St Louis and the National Personnel Records Center to substantiate his
case.
5.  The applicant lists the six attachments to his 21 July 2003 application
as (1) cover letter, (2) CAARNG Orders 279-531, (3) CAARNG Orders 116-001,
(4) Request to CAARNG, (5) Response from CAARNG, Enlistment Contract.  In a
subsequent submission, received on 14 May 2004, he requested, "all
materials previously submitted to the Board be disregarded and destroyed.
All relevant materials and documentation to include newly revealed
information have been clarified, abbreviated, indexed and placed within
this binder to avoid confusion and simplify proceedings."  These include
the following:

      Exhibit 1 – 6 October 1997 CAARNG Orders 279-531 discharging the
applicant from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army with a general
discharge under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200,
paragraph 8-26g(4).

      Exhibit 2 – National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation
and Record of Service showing the applicant's 1 November 1997 separation
from the ARNG in a pay grade E-6 with a general discharge and a reentry
eligibility code of 3.


      Exhibit 3 – 2 September 1997 orders from ARPERCEN transferring the
applicant as a staff sergeant (E-6) from the USAR Control Group
(Reinforcement) to the CAARNG, effective 27 August 1997.


      Exhibit 4 – CAARNG Orders116-1120, dated 25 April 2000, revoked CAARNG
Orders 279-531.


      Exhibit 5 – CAARNG Orders116-001, dated 25 April 2000, discharged the
applicant with a general discharge and a RE code of 3 and transferred him
to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) under the provisions of
National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26g(4).


      Exhibit 6 – Applicant's 5 July 2000 enlistment contract showing he
reenlisted in the USAR (Individual Ready Reserve)(Individual Mobilization
Augmentee) for 6 years.


      Exhibit 7 – Army Review Boards Agency's 11 July 2003 letter of
acknowledging the applicant's 19 January 2003 application and suspending
action for 30 bays to allow him to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board
(ADRB).


      Exhibit 8 – ADRB denial of the applicant's request to upgrade his
1 November 1997 discharge from the CAARNG


      Exhibit 9 – ARPERSCOM, St Louis Memorandum, dated 14 August 2003,
notified the applicant of initiated elimination for fraudulent enlistment
in April 2003.    The memorandum noted that the applicant had received a
general discharge from the ARNG and was not eligible to reenlist.  It also
notified him of his rights and gave him 30 days to respond.


      Exhibit 10 – 1 April 2004 Memorandum for the CAARNG Personnel Officer
from the CAARNG Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) who opined that the RE code
should have been RE-1 and that the authority should have been section 260
of the California Military Veterans Code


      Exhibit 11 – Memorandum from Staff Sergeant S____ to Staff Sergeant
M___ [hand written date is illegible] notes that the applicant would have
been eligible for an honorable discharge if separated under National Guard
Regulation 600-200 paragraph 8-27h and that the reentry code should have
been RE-1.  Changes were recommended by revoking order 116-001 and further
amending order 279-531.


      Exhibit 12 – A 2 April 2004 memorandum from the CAARNG Inspector
General describes the applicant's case as an erroneous discharge cites the
SJA's 1 April 2004 memorandum [Exhibit 10] and mentions a correction to the
 NGB Form 22.


      Exhibit 13 – The NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22), dated 1 May
2004, shows the applicant was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual
Training).  It changed the authority to Section 260, California Military
Veterans Code and National Guard Regulation 600-200 paragraph 8-27h and
changed the character of service to honorable.  The document was signed by
a master sergeant, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the enlisted
personnel branch.


      Exhibit 14 – Applicant's 15 September 1995 oath of office as a first
lieutenant WAARNG.


      Exhibit 15 –WAARNG orders 268-06, dated 25 September 1995, discharging
the applicant as a chief warrant office three and appointing him a first
lieutenant.


      Exhibit 16 – Applicant's 15 November 1995 letter requesting immediate
release from the WAARNG due to conflicts with his civilian employer.  The
letter acknowledged that an investigation had been initiated into his
attendance at a military school.  He asked to be discharge at the
conclusion of that investigation or as soon as possible.


      Exhibit 17 – a 6 January 1996 "Summary of Allegation " announced the
initiation of actions under National Guard Regulation (NGR) 635-101 to
withdraw Federal Recognition as a first lieutenant for substandard
performance by "failure to exercise necessary leadership or command
required of an officer of your grade.…All allegations are specifically
based upon your misrepresentation at attendance of SF CDQC [Special Forces
Combat Diver Qualification Course]."


      Exhibit 18 – Applicant's 11 January 1996 letter of resignation
mentioned the investigation that he had "misrepresented my status" at a
"military dive school" was complete and that board action might ensue.  He
tendered his immediate resignation "in lieu of any discharge proceedings."
He blamed his civilian employer for improper pressure and conduct and
claimed that he would like to appear at a board to defend his behavior, but
that his civilian employer had ordered him to immediately cease any
military affiliation.


      Exhibit 19 – Memorandum from WAARNG Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel (DCSPER) to the unit returning  the request to withdraw Federal
Recognition because the applicant had indicated to the DCSPER that he would
resign.


      Exhibit 20 – WAARNG, 95th Troop Command, SJA's approval of the
investigation.  He noted that the applicant had been dismissed from the SF
CDQC for cause and that he had misrepresented his status to the staff by,
"denying his military status."


      Exhibit 21 – The WAARNG Adjutant General's approval of the applicant's
request and direction for a general discharge.


      Exhibit 22 – WAARNG orders separating the applicant from the ARNG with
a general discharge.


      Exhibit 23 – Applicant's 24 July 1996 NGB Form 22.


      Exhibit 24 – 18 August 1997 letter to the applicant from the U.S.
Department of Labor stating that his complaint about his former employer
was found to have established a prima-facie showing that his rights under
the Uniformed Service Employment And Reemployment Act had been violated.


      Exhibit 25 – The ADRB case with applicant's personal letter of
explanation and the decisional document denying his request.


      Exhibit 26 – National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) letter, dated
25 November 2002, to the applicant states that the NPRC does not issue
awards but that it can verify the applicant is entitled to the Meritorious
Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, National
Defense Service Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal with one
bronze service Oak Leaf Cluster, Army Service Medal, Army Reserve
Components Overseas Training medal, Diver Badge, Scuba, Army Lapel Button,
Parachutist Badge (Basic), and the Special Forces Tab.  There is also a 5
November 2003 letter to the applicant informing him that the NPRC cannot re-
issue military orders authorizing awards.


      Exhibit 27– 24 May 1994 letter authorizing the applicant the Army
Reserve Components Achievement Medal.


      Exhibit 28 – Award certificate for the Army Commendation Medal, dated
8 December 1990 for service during Operation Balikatan.


      Exhibit 29 – Award certificate for the Meritorious Service Medal,
dated 28 July 1989.


      Exhibit 30 – Award certificate for the Army Commendation, dated 7 July
1986 for the period 5 June to 3 July 1986.


      Exhibit 31 – Award certificate for the Army Commendation, dated 25
July 1989.


      Exhibit 32 – 11 July 1994 memorandum authorizing him to accept and
wear the Royal Thai Airborne Wings.


      Exhibit 33 – 11 July 1994 memorandum authorizing the applicant to
accept and retain but not wear the Philippines Parachutist Badge.


      Exhibit 34 – The applicant's DD Form 214 (certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty for the period I April 1982 to 22 July 1983.

6.  Subsequently, he submitted copies of CAARNG discharge Orders 145-1027
dated 25 May 2004, a 1 April 2004 NGB Form (22A Correction to NGB 22) and a
25 June 2004 letter from the CAARNG Inspector General stating that his new
discharge documents were enclosed and that the case was closed.

7.  In support of his request for relief from the USAR elimination
proceedings that resulted from the ARPERSCOM 23 August 2003 recommendation
for elimination from the USAR, he submitted his own letter to the effect
that a separation board had ignored the facts and the governing regulations
and recommended that he be separated with a discharge under other than
honorable conditions because of fraudulent enlistment.  He also submitted a
letter from his assigned military defense counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests nothing beyond the applicant's request.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that any case of fraudulent enlistment in
the CAARNG had been overcome by events because the general discharge, the
reason and the authority had all been nullified by the CAARNG's corrective
action.  Counsel also contends that the elimination board's finding of
fraudulent enlistment when he joined the USAR IRR in 1997 was invalid
because of the Army Regulation 140-111 rule that specifies that only
instances that occurred during the last period of service are
disqualifying.

3.  Counsel provides nothing beyond that submitted by the applicant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 1 April 1982 and was released
from active duty on 22 July 1983 for hardship by A Company, 1st Special
Warfare Training Battalion.  He was assigned to the U. S. Army Reserve
(USAR) Control Group (Annual Training).

2.  In 1994, the applicant was retroactively awarded the Special Forces
Tab.  That award was subsequently revoked when the course completion
certificate he had submitted as proof of his 1983 graduation was discovered
to have been prepared on a 1996 form and was signed by an individual who
had not been the school commandant.

3.  He was appointed a USAR warrant officer in 1993 and affiliated with the
WAARNG in mid 1994.

4.  In a 15 November 1995 letter, the applicant requested immediate release
from the WAARNG due to conflicts with his civilian employer.  The letter
acknowledged that an investigation had been initiated into his attendance
at a military school.  He asked to be discharge at the conclusion of that
investigation or as soon as possible.


5.  A 6 January 1996 memorandum with a subject line of,  "Summary of
Allegation," announced the initiation of actions under NGR 635-101 to
withdraw the applicant's Federal Recognition as a first lieutenant for
substandard performance by "failure to exercise necessary leadership or
command required of an officer of your grade.…All allegations are
specifically based upon your misrepresentation at attendance of SF CDQC."


6 The applicant's 11 January 1996 letter of resignation noted that the
investigation into the accusation that he "misrepresented my status" at a
"military dive school" and tendered his immediate resignation "in lieu of
any discharge proceedings."  He blamed his civilian employer for improper
pressure and conduct and claimed that he would like to appear at a board to
defend his behavior, but he had been ordered by his employer to immediately
cease any military affiliation.


7.  The WAARNG, 95th Troop Command, Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) approved the
investigation report.  He noted that the applicant had been dismissed from
the "SF CDQC" for cause and that he had misrepresented his status to the
staff by "denying his military status."  The WAARNG Adjutant General's
approved the applicant's request and directed a general discharge.  On 24
July 1996, the applicant was separated from the WAARNG with a general
discharge due to resignation in lieu of elimination.

8.  On 16 December 1996, the applicant signed a memorandum for record,
subject "Vacating of Commission as an Officer of the Army".  He stated, “In
order to receive a new assignment in the Army Reserve available only to
enlisted personnel, please accept this memorandum as a vacating/resignation
of appointment/commission as a Reserve Officer, 1LT/02, of the Army.”

9.  On 23 January 1997, the applicant enlisted for 4 years in the USAR.  He
executed his enlistment, in pay grade E-4, at the Seattle, Washington MEPS.

10.  On 27 August 1997, the applicant requested release from the USAR
Control Group so he could join the CAARNG.

11.  A 10 October 1997 Memorandum for Record by the Personnel Security
Manager, WAARNG states she had received an order from the Army Reserve
Personnel Center releasing the applicant from the USAR Control Group
(Reinforcement) to the CAARNG in military occupational specialty (MOS)
18D30
(Special Forces Medical Sergeant).  She informed the CAARNG that his
security clearance had been suspended because he falsified documents and
per an
investigation performed in WAARNG he did not have the MOS as he claimed.
She stated a check also showed that he had a DD Form 214 allegedly from the
WAARNG showing he had an honorable discharge but that the WAARNG reported
it had not produced that document and that the signature was fictitious.

12.  On 1 November 1997, the applicant was discharged from the CAARNG with
a general discharge for fraudulent entry.

13.  A 21 May 1998 Memorandum for Record from a member of the CAARNG,
apparently in response to an inquiry from the applicant’s lawyer, includes,
"We did not notify the soldier- we were wrong in not doing that."

14.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were
summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's 16 June 1999
denial of the applicant's request for restoration or award of the Special
Forces Tab as case AR1999019428.  The applicant’s submission is new
evidence that requires Board consideration.

15.  Also Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were
summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous denial
of the CAARNG case (AR1999033359) on 16 February 2000.  The applicant’s
contentions are new argument that require Board consideration.

16.  On 25 April 2000, the CAARNG revoked its earlier discharge order and
issued new discharge order 146-1027 and a 1 May 2004 NGB 22A.  They show
that the applicant was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual
Training).  Under Section 260, California Military Veterans Code and
National Guard Regulation 600-200 paragraph 8-27h.  The character of
service was honorable.

17.  The applicant served on active duty training from 11 February 2003 to
15 March 2003, a period of 35 days.  He was issued a DD Form 214, which
lists his awards, including the Special Forces Tab.

18.  On 21 January 2004, in two separate cases, the Army Discharge Review
Board considered the applicant's requests to upgrade the 24 July 1996
general discharge from the WAARNG and his 1 November 1998 general discharge
from the CAARNG.

19.  According to applicant and his counsel, on 1 May 2004, an elimination
board considered the applicant's case, found that he ha enlisted
fraudulently when he entered the IRR in 1997 and recommended that he be
separated under other than honorable conditions.  The board proceedings are
not contained in the available record and the applicant did not furnish it.
20.  Army Regulation 135-175 provides policy and criteria for the
separation of officers of the Army National Guard and the USAR.  In
pertinent part, it states that an officer who has been notified of
consideration for involuntary separation may submit a resignation at any
time prior to final action taken on the board proceedings.  Commanders will
ensure that there is no element of coercion in connection with a
resignation in lieu of involuntary separation.

21.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program) sets for the policy for initial and other that immediate
reenlistments.
   Chapter 4 sets forth disqualifications that require a waiver and those
that cannot be waived.  Paragraph 4-24 lists disqualifications that cannot
be waived, including the following items:


        c. Questionable moral character.


      o. Last discharged or separated from a Component of a U.S. Armed Force
other than the U.S. Army, with other than honorable discharge, or for
reasons similar to those outlined above and in paragraph 4-25 . (Includes
general discharge under honorable conditions.)


22.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) sets forth the policy and
provides specific instructions for preparation of the DD Form 214.
Paragraph 2-1 specifies that, except as provided in paragraph b below, a DD
Form 214 will be prepared for each soldier as indicated.
           (a) Active Army soldiers on termination of active duty because
      of administrative separation (including separation due to retirement
      or expiration term of service (ETS)), physical disability separation,
      or punitive discharge under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
           (b) Reserve component (RC) soldiers completing 90 days or more
      of continuous active duty for training (ADT), Full-Time National Guard
      Duty (FTNGD), active duty for special work (ADSW), temporary tours of
      active duty (TTAD), or Active Guard Reserve (AGR) service, except as
      specified in subparagraphs (3) through (5) below.
                 (c) RC soldiers separated for cause or physical disability
      regardless of the length of time served on active duty. (A separation
      under AR 635-200 , paragraph 5-11 is not considered a physical
      disability separation.)
           (d) ARNGUS and USAR soldiers mobilized under sections 12301(a) ,
      12302 , or 12304 , title 10, U.S. Code and ARNG soldiers called into
      Federal service under chapter 15, or section 12406, title 10, U.S.
      Code , regardless of length of mobilization, when transitioned from
      active duty. A soldier who reports to a mobilization station and is
      found unqualified for active duty will be excluded from this
      provision. He or she will only receive a DD Form 220 (Active Duty
      Report).
           (e)   RC soldiers completing initial ADT that results in the
      award of a military occupational specialty (MOS), even when the active
      duty period was less than 90 days. This includes completion of
      advanced individual training (AIT) under ARNGUS Alternate Training
      Program or USAR Split Training Program.
           23.  Army Regulation 140-111 applies to the Army Reserve
                 Reenlistment Program

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant claims that he requested immediate release from the
WAARNG on 14 November 1995 and that, when he found out, on 6 January 1996,
that there was an investigation he was given only 5 days to respond.
However, his 14 November 1995 memorandum clearly shows he knew there was an
investigation in progress.  There is no available evidence that he was
given only 5 days to respond to a show cause board.  In fact, his 11
January 1996 letter states, "I also understand that…a board may be convened
in order to show cause for retention."

2.  There is no substantiation to support the applicant's claim that his
civilian employer pressured him to precipitously resign from the WAARNG.
Likewise there is no evidence or even convincing argument to show that such
alleged pressure was caused by the National Guard unit commander.  The
applicant was not discharged from the WAARNG for substandard performance.
He was separated with a general discharge because he resigned rather that
face elimination proceedings.

3.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation in lieu of
elimination, was administratively correct and in conformance with
applicable regulations. There is no substantiation that the request was
made under coercion or duress.  The type of discharge directed and the
reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The circumstances surrounding the applicant's resignation from the
WAARNG and the type discharge he received created disqualifications for
enlistment that could not be waived.  The Army Regulation 140-111 provision
cited by counsel does not apply in any way to any of the various actions
because the applicant's last legitimate period of service was as an officer
in the WAARNG.  His 23 January 1997 enlistment in the USAR was fraudulent.


5.  Since his enlistment in the USAR was fraudulent, his transfer to the
CAARNG or his subsequent 2003 reenlistment in the USAR could not have been
legitimate.  Furthermore, the CAARNG officials were focused upon the
applicant's entry into the USAR and not his later affiliation with the
CAARNG.

6.  The CAARNG did not afford the applicant the appropriate due process,
but any injustice that may have occurred under Federal regulations was
rectified by the issuance of the honorable discharge, the change of reason
and authority for discharge and the effective nullification of his
separation from the USAR.  There is no remaining injustice within the
purview of this Board.

7.  The only new evidence concerning the applicant's awards is the NPRC's
25 November 2002 letter to the applicant, his 15 March 2002 DD Form 214 and
the copies of the certificates he submitted.  There is no  evidentiary
value to the NPRC letter or the DD Form 214, since there is no indication
of the source documents and because, by regulation, the DD Form 214 should
not have even been issued.

8.  Given the applicant's history with respect to "official" certificates,
the copies of award certificates, likewise have no evidentiary value.

9.  There is no available evidence to show that the applicant's original RA
period of service warrants award of the Good Conduct Medal.

10.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
elimination board proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and
regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge
recommended is commensurate with his overall record.

11.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JCH____  __LE   __  __HOF __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.

2.  The evidence presented also does not demonstrate the existence of a
probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the
overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the
decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Numbers AR1999010428, dated 16
June 1999 and AR 1999033359, dated 16 February 2000.





                                            James C. Hise________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101066                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041118                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |




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