RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      19 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050015668


      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. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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, that his involuntary separation
action from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) be rescinded, with
reinstatement in an active Reserve status.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that a grave injustice occurred the
weekend of 16-17 October 2004.  On that weekend, he was directed to appear
before an administrative board at the 81st Regional Readiness Command.
Despite his personal testimony, over 25 letters of recommendation from
military officers with whom he had served on active duty and civilian
professionals, the personal testimony of the G1 Operations Officer, and the
invaluable medical skills he provided toward the defense of our nation, the
board recommended he be involuntarily discharged from the USAR.  He
received notification that he would be issued a general discharge from the
USAR.

3.  The applicant also states that the charges against him that
precipitated this board action originated with the National Army Medical
Department (AMEDD) Augmentation Detachment's former commander, now a
retired colonel, with whom he had an extensive personality conflict
throughout his assignment to the detachment.  The former commander's
charges dealt with a physical profile which prohibited him from taking the
Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) for which he had a valid "no Physical
Training (PT) Profile" that was issued to him en-route to his active duty
deployment in the Bosnian Theater of Operation in 1997.  This "no PT
Profile" was just reissued by the Human Resources Command (HRC) in 2005.
Colonel ____ believed that he (the applicant) did not fit the physical
"poster-boy" appearance the Army wished to portray.  Colonel _____ stated
this in writing on 31 May 2002.  Colonel ___ also stated he was "unable to
observe" the applicant's performance, yet his serving on active duty for
over 9 months in the Bosnian Theater of Operation was not considered "field
duty" for Colonel _____.  Performing his annual training at Tripler Army
Medical Center, where he received an "outstanding" officer evaluation
report (OER), the only real OER in his 24 years of service, was also not
considered "field duty".

4.  The applicant further states that Colonel ___ had absolutely no basis
for his comments, "the soldier has disease of one or both lower extremities
that have interfered with function to such a degree as to prevent the
individual from following a physically active vocation in civilian life or
that would interfere with walking, running, weight bearing, or the
satisfactory completion of prescribed training or military duty."  Upon
return from active duty, he returned to full-time practice.  Colonel
_____'s statement shows a malicious intent, a lack of credibility and was
libelous and actionable.  He questions, how could anyone who personally
knew him and who had served and/or practiced with him have such a different
opinion of him as a physician and as an officer versus a commander who had
never met him?  The problem, he states, clearly sits with the National
AMEDD Augmentation Detachment structure and command charged with managing
his Army career.  He reached the rank of colonel through is own diligence,
hard work, and study.

5.  The applicant further states that he has an incredibly valued
professional skill both as an Emergency Physician and as a US Army Flight
Surgeon, and wishes to continue to offer these services to his country.
His specialized skill is desperately needed in support of our Global War on
Terrorism and our homeland defense efforts.  He was recently called on to
support the medical disaster assistance efforts following Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita as they passed over South Florida.  The Army Separation
Board's decision was a very serious one and very much in error, given the
total scope of his career, just as the unfounded and unsubstantiated
opinions of Colonel _____, now retired, the former commander of the
National AMEDD Augmentation Detachment.  In light of the Board's decision,
he pleads for an alternate disposition of his case that would retain him in
the service of our national defense.

6.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty), his Service School Academic
Evaluation Report, his promotion memorandum for colonel, his 2000
assignment orders, his OER for the period 7 April through 21 April 2001,
his Army photograph, his Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age
60 (Twenty-Year Letter), his certificate of appreciation, his certificate
of commendation, his Army Commendation Medal award certificate, sixteen
memorandums and letters of support, and his letter from the Transition and
Separations Branch, HRC – St. Louis, Missouri, in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he was appointed in the USAR,
Medical Corps, as a first lieutenant, effective 11 September 1981.  He was
promoted to lieutenant colonel effective 30 October 1996.

2.  He was ordered to active duty effective 11 September 1997 in support of
Operation Joint Endeavor.  He was released from active duty for completion
of required service, in the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective 12 May
1998.  He was transferred to a USAR troop program unit (TPU).

3.  He was reassigned to the National AMEDD Augmentation Detachment
effective 15 July 1998.  He completed the AMEDD Officer Advanced Course
effective 31 July 1998.
4.  He was issued a promotion memorandum, dated 29 February 2000,
indicating his selection for promotion to colonel by a special selection
board with a promotion effective date and date of rank of 9 November 1999.

5.  He was issued a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60
(20-Year Letter) on 16 October 2002.

6.  In a memorandum, dated 21 January 2004, the Commander, Headquarters,
81st Regional Support Command, Birmingham, Alabama, notified the applicant
of an involuntary separation action initiated.  The memorandum stated that
a show cause hearing would be held on 28-29 February 2004.  The applicant
was required to show cause for retention in the USAR based on his moral and
professional dereliction as defined under the provisions of Army Regulation

135-175, specifically paragraph 2-12(f), acts of personal misconduct.  The
memorandum further stated the applicant would acknowledge receipt of the
correspondence by completing an Election of Options, a Selection/Waiver of
Rights.  If he elected to waive his rights to a board hearing and tender an
unconditional resignation, for the resignation to be valid, it had to be
done through his appointed counsel.

7.  On 6 October 2004, the Commander, 81st Regional Support Command,
Birmingham, Alabama, appointed an Investigating Officer (IO) pursuant to
Army Regulation 15-6 to determine if the applicant had committed acts of
personal misconduct by filing a false travel voucher, disobeying lawful
orders, failing to follow instructions, and failing to perform duty as
specifically required.  The IO conducted his investigation from 6 through
16 October 2004.

8.  On 17 October 2004, a board of officers approved the findings that the
applicant did commit the acts of personal misconduct and moral or
professional derelictions, specifically under Army Regulation 135-175,
chapter 2, paragraph
2-12(f).  The board recommended the applicant be discharged from the USAR
with a general discharge under honorable conditions.

9.  The applicant submits copies of 16 memorandum and letters dated from
1 October through 15 October 2004, all stating, in effect, that the
applicant was a good soldier and doctor and should not be removed from
active service.

10.  In a letter, dated 7 October 2005, the Commander, HRC, St. Louis,
advised the applicant of approval of the findings and recommendation of his
involuntary separation by a board of officers and the issuance of a general
discharge.

11.  He was discharged from the USAR, in the rank of colonel, effective
11 November 2005, with a general discharge.
12.  In a memorandum, dated 28 November 2005, the HR Assistant, Transition
and Separations Branch, HRC – St. Louis, advised the Army Review Boards
Agency – St. Louis, that the applicant was serving as a TPU officer at the
time of his board action.  The discharge order #D-10-533473, dated 13
October 2005 and effective 11 November 2005, was issued by the HRC, in
accordance with procedure, upon the recommendation of an administrative
separation board and final approval of the Commander, HRC – St. Louis, for
TPU officers.

13.  His Chronological Statement of Retirement Points, dated 26 June 2006,
shows he was credited with 23 qualifying years for retirement as of
11 November 2005.

14.  Army Regulation 15-6 provides the procedures for investigations not
provided by other directives.  The regulation provides that when adverse
administrative action is contemplated, based on the results of the
investigation, the appropriate military authority must observe minimum
safeguards before taking final action.  Those safeguards are to notify the
person in writing of the proposed adverse action, give a reasonable
opportunity to reply in writing and submit relevant rebuttal material, and
provide a review and evaluation of the rebuttal.

15.  Army Regulation 135-175, prescribes the policies and procedures for
the separation of officers from the USAR and Army National Guard.
Paragraph
2-12(f) of this regulation authorizes the involuntary separation of an
officer due to acts of personal misconduct, unless successfully rebutted.
Officers discharged may be furnished an honorable or general discharge
certificate or other than honorable conditions discharge.  A board of
officers will convene to determine if officers will be retained in the
Army.  Respondents must be prepared to present evidence in their own behalf
before the board.  When the findings have been determined, the
recommendations will be limited to the following:  retention or involuntary
separation.  Recommendations for involuntary separation of an officer must
also include a recommendation for the type of discharge certificate of the
type of discharge issued.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that a grave injustice occurred when he was
involuntarily separated from the USAR.  However, his military service was
interrupted after an investigation and a board of officers had determined
that he committed acts of personal misconduct.

2.  When the applicant was notified of the impending involuntary separation
action, he was given the option to show cause for his retention in the
USAR.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a board of officers
approved the findings that the applicant committed acts of personal
misconduct and recommended the applicant be discharged from the USAR with a
general discharge under honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they do not
sufficiently support his request and do not serve as mitigation in his
case.  The 16 memorandums and letters of support provided by the applicant
have been noted, and while they show he was an excellent officer and
doctor, they do not show an unfair or inaccurate investigation and
separation actions in this case.

4.  Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions, the Board concludes that
the applicant has not provided evidence that he was improperly separated
from the USAR and issued a general discharge.  The Board also concludes
that the applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to support his
request.  It is noted that the applicant did not present convincing
evidence at the time of his hearing before a board of officers.  Therefore,
the applicant was properly separated from the USAR in accordance with
regulatory guidance.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant’s requests.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEV___  __BJE __  __DLL___  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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                            _____James E. Vick__________
                       CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050015668                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060719                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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