RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         01 FEBRUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000175


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Walter Morrison               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |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 reconsideration of his previous requests to
correct his records to show that he was retired or separated by reason of
physical disability.

2.  The applicant states that he was rated as 100 percent disabled by the
Department of Veterans Affairs for a service connected injury.  He notes
that the Department of Veterans Affairs found that his 30 July 1964 fall
during basic combat training warranted a rating of 60 percent and “where
this results in a total disability rating due to unemployability” he has
now been rated as 100 percent disabled.

3.  He also states that the Department of Veterans Affairs had found him to
have schizophrenia “which they claim pre-existed service, but was
exacerbated by [his] period of service.”  He notes that previous decisions
by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) have
“sarcastically and falsely” portrayed his disability as 10 percent for his
back and 10 percent for his foot and have referred to him as having a
personality disorder.  He states that a “personality disorder” is a
condition, which is not even recognized as compensable by the Department of
Veterans Affairs.  He notes that previously the ABCMR argued that he was a
“mental case” before he was inducted in the Army and therefore there was a
“responsibility NOT to have inducted [him] in the first place.”

4.  He states that the “only valid basis for discharge should have been--
and still should be—discharged due to incurring serious LOD [line of duty]
injuries through no fault of [his] own.”

5.  In support of his request he cites several documents submitted to the
Court by the “US Army, Chief, Military Personnel Litigation Branch” be
considered.  Those documents include, and were identified by the applicant
by the page number on the bottom right corner of the documents from the
litigation branch:

      a.  The 29 December 1999 Memorandum of Consideration reflecting the
Board’s decision to deny the applicant’s request to change the reason for
his discharge from unsuitability, personality disorder, to physical
disability. (pages 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042)

      b.  The 31 December 1999 letter, signed by the then Director, ABMCR,
denying the applicant’s request for reconsideration of his earlier
application for correction of military records. (page 036)


      c.  A letter prepared by the applicant on 20 January 2000 and mailed
on 21 January and addressed to the then Secretary of the Army, the
Honorable Louis Caldera, in which he asked the Secretary to conduct an
inquiry into the handling of his case and cites various issues contained in
the Board’s
29 December 1999 Memorandum of Consideration.  He stated that there was no
action to discharge him prior to his serious line of duty accident, and
that the Army’s “headshrinker who claimed [he] had a personality disorder
shipped [him] back to basic training and tucked his ‘report’ in a drawer.”
He states that contrary to information contained in the ABCMR Memorandum of
Consideration he had not “seen a shrink since [age] 11” and that “at the
time in question (age 18) could not have been ‘extremely litigious’.”  He
wrote about his displeasure with previous requests for reconsideration
which were closed by the staff of the board and not sent to the ABCMR
Board, with inclusion of information regarding actions by the Army
Discharge Review Board in the Board’s proceedings, and with misleading
information regarding AWOL (absent without leave) when it was only “failure
to repair.”  He questioned the information in the Memorandum of Proceedings
regarding his medical treatment following his accident, and notes that the
information is incorrect.  He stated that shortly after his discharge the
Department of Veterans Affairs examined him and found that he had “a 40%
rating on the back, 10 on the right foot, and a 0 rating on the left” all
of which were retroactive to the day following his separation.  He also
disputed information in the Memorandum of Consideration related to the
reason for his discharge from the Air Force.  He stated that contrary to
the information in the Memorandum of Consideration he was not discharged
for “fraudulent entry” and that the reason for his discharge from the Air
Force was corrected years ago to show that it was the result of an
erroneous enlistment.  He also questioned what his Air Force service had to
do with the determination of his Army service.  He questioned why the Army
Board was “intent on maintaining a smear” on him.  He concluded the
correspondence by stating that the “discharge should have been effected
based on erroneous enlistment or [unreadable] since the Army claims [he]
did not meet entrance standards due to [unreadable] pre-existing
‘personality disorder’.” (pages 058, 059, 060)

      d.  A 15 March 2000 letter to the applicant from the Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Army Review Boards, responding on behalf of the Secretary of the
Army, to his letter.  The applicant was informed that he had been
“previously advised of the option you can pursue to have your application
reconsidered by the ABCMR, and your option to seek review in Federal
court.” (page 064)







      e.  An 18 March 2000 letter from the applicant to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Army Review Boards, requesting that his case be reconsidered
“pursuant to the material contained in [his] letter to Secretary Caldera….”
(page 073)


      f.  A 3 April 2000 letter from the ABCMR, signed by an analyst for the
Director, which was addressed to the applicant.  The letter referred to the
applicant’s 21 January 2000 letter to the Secretary of the Army and his 18
March 2000 letter to the ABCMR and explained the regulatory requirements
for reconsidering a case.  It related that a request for reconsideration
must necessarily be based upon submission of new evidence or other matter
not previously available to the Board.  It noted that “while [he had]
detailed [his] contentions once again, these do not amount to new matters”
and as such “there was no basis for resubmitting his request to the Board.
(page 069)


      g.  A 15 May 2000 rating decision from the Department of Veterans
Affairs.  The rating decision indicated that the “issue” was service
connection for schizophrenia, entitlement to individual unemployability,
and eligibility for Dependents’ Educational Assistance.  The decision was
to grant a 50 percent rating effective on 12 October 1994 for
schizophrenia, to entitlement to individual unemployability effective 12
October 1994, and to establish basic eligibility to Dependents’ Education
Assistance from 12 October 1994.  It noted that the applicant had a
combined disability rating of 50 percent as of 22 September 1964 (back
condition was independently rated at 40 percent, right foot rated at 10
percent, left foot rated at 0 percent), a combined disability rating of 60
percent as of 5 August 1993 (back condition was independently rated at 50
percent, right foot at 10 percent, and left foot at 10 percent), and a
combined rating of 80 percent as of 12 October 1994 (schizophrenic reaction
was independently rated at 50 percent, back condition at 50 percent, right
foot at 10 percent, and left foot at 10 percent). (pages 066, 067, 068)


      h.  A 17 May 2000 letter, mailed on 18 May, from the applicant to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Army Review Boards, in which he relates that
the
15 May 2000 Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision “surely must
qualify…as new evidence” and not as detailing his contentions once again.
He reiterates that based on the “documentation now supplied, can there be
any question whatsoever that the reason for discharge should be changed to:
discharged due to serious line of duty injuries….” (page 065)



      i.  A 30 November 2000 letter to the applicant signed by an analyst
for the Director, ABCMR, informing him that his application has “been
reevaluated and returned without action by the staff of this Board on seven
separate occasions” and that acknowledging that he had submitted several
different disability determinations from the Department of Veterans Affairs
as his new evidence.  The letter indicated that “it appears” that the
applicant believes that a finding by the Department of Veterans Affairs
alone is sufficient to authorize a change in his discharge.  The letter
provides information regarding the basis for Department of Veterans Affairs
ratings, and the difference in Army and Department of Veterans Affairs
rating requirements.  The letter concludes by informing the applicant that
paragraph 2-15b of Army Regulation 15-185 provides for the reconsideration
of cases which are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original
consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  He was
told that in such cases the staff of the Board will review the request to
determine if “substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows
fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if
there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously
or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.”  The letter
informed the applicant that more than 1 year had elapsed since the original
consideration of his case and the staff of the Board determined that the
current application did not contain evidence that met the above criteria.
(page 079, 080)

      j.  A 7 December 2000 letter from the applicant to an attorney from
the National Veterans Legal Services Program, which the applicant indicated
was mailed on 8 December in which he asks that his attached documents be
turned over to the “law firm that handled the Falk case.”  He related that
he had submitted new evidence as to why the reason for his discharge from
the Army should be changed and that despite a 100 percent disability rating
by the Department of Veterans Affairs the Army has refused to change the
reason for his discharge.  He stated that the staff of the Board returned
his request without action on seven separate occasions, and that it was his
understanding that the “lawsuit filed was to prevent just this sort of
thing.”  He stated that “when you have a situation where a veteran has a
100% disability rating from the V.A. and the ABCMR Staff sits there and
says I’ve supplied no new evidence” that the Board was not acting in good
faith.  He stated that “the Board has, effectively given its staff the
power to arbitrarily and capriciously dismiss bids for record corrections.”
 (page 062)

      k.  A 16 January 2000 letter (which was corrected to show 2001 by a
handwritten correction) from the Chief Analyst, CIQA (Client Information
and


Quality Assurance) section of the ABCMR responding to his 7 December 2000
letter to the National Veterans Legal Services Program.  The letter
informed him that his letter had been forwarded to the Agency’s Screening
Team “for review” and that the “staff of the Board would determine if [he]
had provided sufficient new relevant evidence to reopen [his] case.” (page
063)

      l.  A 22 January 2001 letter from the applicant to the then Chief,
Analyst, CIQA, in which he reiterates essentially the same information that
was contained in his 20 January 2000 letter to the Secretary of the Army
which involved the inaccuracy of information in the Board’s 1999 Memorandum
of Consideration. (page 081)

      m.  A 26 May 2001 letter from the applicant to the then Chief,
Analyst, CIQA, indicating that it was his understanding that an employee of
the ABCMR “denominated as an analyst” was reviewing his current bid for
correction of the reason for discharge based on evidence he had already
submitted.  He stated that there was no question in his mind that such
relief should have been granted “long ago.”  He attached a copy of an 18
May 2001 Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision which he noted
“makes absolutely clear, [that his] receipt of a VA check for 100%
disability is now in no way predicated upon anything psychiatric.  It is
based purely upon the very real and significant physical injuries sustained
during Army basic combat training.”  He notes that the rating states that
“the veteran’s service connected back and feet disabilities were incurred
in the same fall and are considered to be of a common etiology for the
purpose of a single disability evaluated 60% for purposes of individual
unemployability.  The veteran filed a claim for individual unemployabiltiy
on 8/5/93 [5 August 1993].  Effective 8/5/93 the veteran met the basic
eligibility requirements for individual unemployability and a total
evaluation is assigned from that date.” (page 085)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC65-
01093B, on
29 February 1984, and in Docket Number AR199034644, on 29 December 1999.

2.  Information available to the Board indicates that the applicant entered
active duty on 9 July 1964.  A copy of his 1 July 1964 report of medical
examination, conducted at the Armed Forces Entrance Station in New York,
and authenticated by a medical doctor, indicated that the applicant was
medically qualified for enlistment.

3.  On 30 July 1964 the applicant fell from a fire escape at Fort Dix, New
Jersey.  He was admitted to Walson Army Hospital at Fort Dix.  A narrative
summary of the applicant’s hospitalization, which was authenticated by
Captain Marvel, the applicant’s primary care physician while hospitalized,
indicated that upon examination during his initial admission to the
hospital his “extremities showed edema and tenderness to palpation over the
right hind foot.  There was pain on subtalar motion.  There was tenderness
over the left hind foot but no edema.  Examination of the spine showed pain
and limitation of motion with paraspinala spasm over the lumbar spine.”  It
noted that the “initial impression” was a fracture of the right os calcis
(heel bone), and compression fracture of L (lumbar)1 and L2.  The final
diagnosis was fracture of the right and left os calcis, no artery or nerve
involvement, and compression fracture, vertebral body, L1 and L2, no artery
or nerve involvement.

4.  Entries on a copy of the applicant’s Standard Form 509 (Doctor’s
Progress Notes) were each authenticated by Captain Marvel.  Those notes
indicate that on 2 August 1964 Captain Marvel noted that there was
“essentially no back tenderness on examination.”  On 12 August 1964 Captain
Marvel noted in his notes that the applicant had “no back pain-ambulates
well on crutches.  Minimal tenderness l[eft] heel.”  On 18 August he noted
that the applicant had “absolutely no back discomfort, no l[eft] heel
swelling or tenderness.”  On 26 August 1964 Captain Marvel indicated that
the applicant was “not using crutches-no discomfort.”

5.  The narrative summary of the applicant’s hospitalization, regarding his
back and feet injuries, indicated:

      There was essentially no back tenderness on examination and neurologic
      examination remained well within the limits of normal.  On 3 Aug[ust]
      a short leg cast was applied to the right lower extremity as the edema
      had subsided.  By 12 Aug[ust] there was essentially no back pain and
      the patient was begun on ambulation on crutches.  There was minimal
      tenderness of the left heel.  By 18 Aug[ust] there was absolutely no
      back discomfort and there was no left heel swelling or tenderness.  A
      walking heel was placed on the right [foot] and the patient was
      transferred to Medical Hold.  On 2 Sep[tember] 1964 the cast was
      removed from the right foot and there was still some tenderness over
      the os calcis with minimal swelling.  His back films showed the
      previously noted compression fracture of L1-2.  There was no
      significant posterior




      displacement.  There were no back complaints.  The patient had a full
      range of motion of the back.  Neurologic examination remained normal.
      An Unna boot was placed on the right foot and because of some pain in
      walking the shank of the shoe was built up one-half inch higher than
      the heel.  In one week’s time the patient was walking very well with a
      slight limp and was approved for discharge to duty.”


6.  There was no indication in the narrative summary of the applicant’s
hospitalization or in his physician’s notes that his condition warranted
referral for disability processing.  He was released from a patient status
on 9 September 1964.  A Department of the Army Form 8-275-3 (Clinical
Record Cover Sheet), authenticated by Captain Marvel, indicates that the
applicant had been accounted for in the “Holding Detachment” between 21
August 1964 and
9 September 1964 because he did not require professional care during that
period. It was noted on the Clinical Record Cover Sheet that at the time of
his release from patient status the applicant’s left and right os calcis
fractures and his compression fracture were “treated, improved LOD [line of
duty]: Yes, CO [commanding officer] & Surgeon agree.”

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-1 states that Line of Duty investigations are
conducted essentially to arrive at a determination as to whether misconduct
or negligence was involved in the disease, injury, or death.  Line of Duty
investigations do not determine fitness for duty determinations.

8.  On 14 September 1964 the applicant underwent a medical examination at
the Medical Processing Section at Fort Dix.  The purpose of the examination
was recorded as AR (Army Regulation) 635-209.  The examining physician
noted that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with no
limiting physical profile for his back or feet.

9.  On 21 September 1964 the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-209.

10.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy
and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for
unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for
unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established
that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in
further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the
individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant
discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and
behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality
disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and
inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism,
and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when
psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a
psychiatrist, if one was available.

11.  A 19 March 1965 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
based on a 22 September 1964 “original claim” for service connection for
“injury to back and rt [right] foot, and nervous disorder.”  The rating
decision, authenticated by Doctor Carrano, Mr. Nemens, and Mr. Weinrich,
indicated that the applicant had been granted a combined 20 percent
disability rating effective on 22 September 1964.  The “residuals,
fracture, rt. [right] os calcis” was independently rated at 10 percent and
his “lumbosacral strain (history of fracture of L-2)” was also
independently rated at 10 percent.

12.  A 31 March 1965 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
authenticated by the same three individuals who authenticated the 19 March
1965 decision document, discussed service connection for injury to left
foot.  The rating document indicated that the applicant’s “fracture, left
os calcis, asymptomatic” was service connected but did not warrant a
compensable rating and was rated at “0% from 9-22-64 [22 September 1964].”

13.  A 15 May 2000 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs
discussed three issues:

      1. Service connection for schizophrenia.
      2. Entitlement to individual unemployability.
      3. Eligibility to Dependents’ Education Assistance under 38 U.S.C
      [United States Code], chapter 35.

The decision was:

      1. Service connection for schizophrenia is granted with an evaluation
      of 50 percent effective October 12, 1994.
      2. Entitlement to individual unemployability is granted effective
      October 1994.
      3. Basic eligibility to Dependents’ Educational Assistance is
      established from October 12, 1994.

14.  The 15 May 2000 rating decision document is the document which the
applicant contended justified reconsideration of his case.  That document
is the

document which noted that the applicant had a combined disability rating of
50 percent as of 22 September 1964 (back condition was independently rated
at 40 percent, right foot rated at 10 percent, left foot rated at 0
percent), a combined disability rating of 60 percent as of 5 August 1993
(back condition was independently rated at 50 percent, right foot at 10
percent, and left foot at 10 percent), and a combined rating of 80 percent
as of 12 October 1994 (schizophrenic reaction was independently rated at 50
percent, back condition at 50 percent, right foot at 10 percent, and left
foot at 10 percent).

15.  The Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision document, granting
the applicant a combined disability rating of 50 percent as of 22 September
1964, was not available to the Board and is not consistent with the 1965
rating document which was available.

16.  An 18 May 2001 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs
considered the issue of the applicant’s effective date for entitlement to a
total evaluation based on individual unemployability and eligibility to
Dependents’ Educational Assistance under 38 U.S.C, chapter 35.  It cited a
letter from the applicant, dated 27 July 1993 and received on 5 August
1993, in which he requested a new examination of his service connected back
and feet disabilities and indicated that he had not been able to work for
the last ten years.  The rating document also cited a letter dated 18
August 1993 and received on 19 August 1993 as a formal claim for increase
for service connected disabilities and a claim for individual
unemployability.  It noted a Board of Veterans Appeals decision dated 3
January 2000 “granted increased evaluation for the veteran’s service
connected back condition from 40% to 50% and increased the evaluation for
service connected fracture of left OS Calcis from 0% to 10% [and] affirmed
the 10% evaluation in effect for service connected fracture of right Os
Calcis.”  Pursuant to the Board of Veterans Affairs decision the applicant
was granted increased evaluation for service connected back disability and
left foot disability effective 5 August 1993, the date of receipt of the
claim for increase.  His combined rating for his back and foot condition
was increased from 50 to 60 percent effective 5 August 1993.  Because the
applicant’s 5 August 1993 combined disability rating of 60 percent (for his
back and feet conditions), and his unemployability met Department of
Veterans Affairs criteria, it was ultimately determined to grant the
applicant “individual unemployability” effective
5 August 1993 because the Department of Veterans Affairs concluded that the
applicant’s 1993 request for increased evaluation for his service connected
back and feet disabilities, received on 5 August 1993, also included a
claim for individual unemployability.

17.  The Department of Veterans Affairs provides for increased disability
ratings where the rating is less than total, when the disabled person is,
in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a
substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected
disabilities.

18.  Army Regulation 635-40, establishes the policies and provisions for
the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies,
responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a
Solider is unfit because of physical disability.  It states that disability
compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred
illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is
interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because
of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

19.  It also states, in pertinent part, that commanders of medical
treatment facilities who are treating Soldiers may initiate action to
evaluate the Soldier’s physical ability to perform the duties of his or her
office, grade, rank, or rating.  It also states that when a commander
believes that a Soldier of his or her command is unable to perform the
duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical
disability, the commander may refer the Soldier to the responsible medical
treatment facility for evaluation.

20.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for disabilities
which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However,
an award of a VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the basis
for a Soldier’s discharge from the Army.  Army disability ratings are
intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career
after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment
that disqualifies him or her from further military service.  The VA, which
has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical
fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for
conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and
subsequently affect the individual’s civilian employability.  Furthermore,
unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her
lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s
examinations and findings.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be
physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the
individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service
connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, in
order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.

21.  Title 38, United States Code, section 5110, states that the effective
date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran will be the day
following the date of the veterans’ discharge or release if application
therefore is received within one year from such date of discharge or
release.  The effective date of an award of increased compensation shall be
the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in
disability had occurred, if application is received within one year from
such date.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The fact that the applicant sustained an injury to his back and feet
while on active duty is not disputed.  However, there is no evidence that
either his back or feet conditions rendered the applicant unfit for
continued military service prior to his separation from active duty in
September 1964.  The fact that neither his attending physician nor his
commanding officer referred him for disability processing following his
injury supports this conclusion.

2.  Additionally, the hospital notes of his attending physician, and the
findings of the medical official that conducted his separation physical
examination, support a conclusion that he was medically qualified for
retention at the time of his separation.

3.  The applicant’s military service was not interrupted as a result of his
injury to his back or feet, the primary requirement for disability
processing, and as such he would not have been entitled to disability
separation or retirement at the time of his separation from active duty.
The evidence shows that the applicant was released from a patient status on
9 September 1964 after having been attached to a detachment since 21 August
1964 “because he did not require professional care during that period.”

4.  The fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs, in its discretion,
has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised
within the policies of that agency.  It does not establish physical
unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.  The award of VA
compensation does not mandate disability retirement or separation from the
Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, may make a
determination that a medical condition exists and that said medical
condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the
individual concerned and warrants compensation.  Furthermore, the VA can
evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of
disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army
must find a member physically unfit before he can be medically retired or
separated.

5.  The effective date of the applicant’s initial VA disability
compensation was mandated by Title 38, United States Code, section 5110,
and is not evidence that the applicant should have been medically retired
or separated from active duty.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WM__  ___JM __  ___WP __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC65-01093B, on 29 February 1984, and
in Docket Number AR199034644, on 29 December 1999.




                                  _____Walter Morrison_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000175                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050201                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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