IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	15 April 2010  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090016536 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows:

	a.  Items 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade) from private first class (PFC)/E-3 to sergeant (SGT)/E-5.

	b.  Item 12b (Separation Date This Period) from 7 October 1991 to an unknown date.

	c.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) to list all his service awards including the Combat Medical Badge.

	d.  Item 14 (Military Education) to show all his military education.

	e.  Item 24 (Character of Service) to show he was fully honorably discharged vice issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.

	f.  Item 26 (Separation Code) removal of the separation code of "JKQ" and adding a code that corresponds with expiration term of service, early release, or other.

	g.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) change "Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense) to something more favorable. 

	h.  Pay and allowances for the months of November and December 1990 and January 1991 while in combat.

2.  The applicant states that during his service with Medical Troop, Regimental Support Squadron (RSS), 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR), his unit did not have his service records.  He was new to the unit and deployed with his unit to Southwest Asia.  There was much controversy about him not having his service records.  However, his service in Southwest Asia was outstanding and after his return to Germany, his service was recognized by a general officer certificate.  His immediate leaders were not prepared because his official records were not available and he was ultimately discharged due to this controversy.  He also states that he received a field promotion to SGT/E-5 during the Persian Gulf War but there is no record of this promotion.  He further states that after he was separated, he managed to gain employment; however, with corporate downsizing, he is searching for a new career but finds his records preclude him from maximizing his job opportunities and benefits.  

3.  The applicant also states that his current records are not accurate and do not represent him or his service.  He was an exceptional Soldier who made excellent efforts and contributions during peace and war.  His current records preclude job offers, education opportunities, and benefits.  A mistake was made by someone in the records section and a single misunderstanding or one incident that occurred while he was in Germany is affecting his entire life negatively.  There were several months where he went without pay and he did not complain despite the fact that his family did not receive any allotments and his bills went unpaid.  He has copies of the leave and earnings statements (LESs).  He also participated in the Battle of 73 Easting as a member of the 2nd ACR and should have been awarded the Combat Medical Badge.

4.  The applicant provides the following documentary evidence in support of his request:

	a.  Copies of Orders 95-96 and 093-048 ordering him to active duty for training (ADT), dated 8 May 1985 and 15 May 1989.

	b.  A copy of an undated certificate acknowledging his Army National Guard (ARNG) scholarship.

	c.  A copy of a certificate of achievement, dated 31 July 1985.

	d.  Copies of pages 1 and 2 of his 4-page DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record).

	e.  A copy of a certificate, dated 11 October 1985, showing completion of training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Combat Medical Specialist).

	f.  A copy of an application for enrollment in the Arkansas Military Academy, dated 5 May 1987.

	g.  A copy of a diploma, dated 11 April 1987, showing completion of the Arkansas Army National Guard (ARARNG) Warrior 2000 Leadership Seminar.

	h.  A copy of a letter of commendation, dated 10 June 1988.

	i.  A copy of a diploma and a DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 11 June 1988, showing completion of the Primary Leadership Development Course.

	j.  A copy of a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 11 July 1988, request for an update of military education.

	k.  A copy of a memorandum, dated 9 August 1989, showing award of the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal.

	l.  A copy of a memorandum, dated 10 August 1988, awarding him the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Professional Development Ribbon.

	m.  A copy of a certificate, dated 3 June 1989, showing completion of the Battle Skills Course.

	n.  An undated certificate of affiliation in the U.S. Army Medical Department Regiment.

	o.  A copy of a memorandum, dated 23 January 1990, showing award of the Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon.

	p.  A copy of his academic transcripts and diploma, dated 12 May 1990, showing award of a Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology.

	q.  A copy of a college brochure of degree offerings at the University of Central Arkansas.

	r.  A copy of his ARNG Honorable Discharge Certificate and National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), dated     18 September 1990.
	s.  A copy of a letter, dated 5 December 1990, regarding instructions on applying for officer candidate school (OCS).

	t.  A copy of his discharge Orders 198-014, dated 10 October 1990.

	u.  A copy of his permanent change of station Orders 189-602, dated 28 September 1990.

	v.  A copy of an undated certificate of commendation for participation in Operation Desert Storm.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant states that he did not receive his pay from November 1990 through January 1991 and that he has copies of his LESs)  However, he did not provide copies of his LESs.  Therefore, this issue cannot be addressed and will not be discussed further in the Record of Proceedings.

3.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the ARARNG on 29 January 1985.  He subsequently entered ADT on 3 June 1985, completed the training requirements, and was awarded MOS 91A.  He was honorably released from ADT to the control of his ARNG unit on 11 October 1985. 

4.  The applicant's records further show he was assigned to the 216th Medical Company, Lake Ridge, AR, in MOS 91A throughout his ARNG service from October 1985 through September 1990.  He also attended and/or completed various ARNG training courses and attained the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4.

5.  On 30 August 1990, the applicant submitted a DA Form 4187 wherein he requested enlistment in the Regular Army (RA).  He indicated that he understood he must comply with the statement of understanding which was a continuation of this form and attached hereto.  The statement of understanding indicated that he must remain fully qualified for enlistment in the RA which was scheduled for 
18 September 1990 and that he understood he was enlisting for the following enlistment option:  "U.S. Army first assignment - No training option."

6.  The applicant's records further show he was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 18 September 1990 and subsequently enlisted in the RA in the rank/grade of SP4/E-4 for a period of 4 years on 19 September 1990.  Item 1 (Acknowledgement) of his DA Form 3286/84 (Statement of Enlistment) shows he enlisted in his former MOS, 91A, and that he would not need/receive any further training.  He authenticated this form by placing his signature in the appropriate place.

7.  The applicant's records also show he arrived in Germany on or about 14 October 1990 and was subsequently assigned to Medical Troop, RSS,        2nd ACR.  

8.  On 5 December 1990, by letter responding to an earlier inquiry made by the applicant, he was notified that if he was interested in applying for attending OCS at Fort Benning, GA, he should contact the nearest Army recruiter and inquire about his eligibility for this program.  The letter further listed some of the key eligibility requirements.  However, there is no indication in the applicant's records that he submitted an application for appointment as a commissioned officer, was accepted for attendance at OCS, or that he was appointed a commissioned officer.

9.  The applicant's records further show he served in Southwest Asia in support of Operations Desert Shield/Storm from 12 December 1990 to 26 April 1991.

10.  The applicant's records contain two sworn statements, dated 24 June 1991, written by his unit first sergeant (1SG) and unit commander as follows:

	a.  In a sworn statement, the 1SG indicated he interviewed the applicant on 
5 December 1990 and that the applicant stated that he was not a 91A because he did not enlist for this MOS.  He also stated that he had previously completed college and enlisted for MOS 81B (Draftsman).  However, when the 1SG looked over his enlistment contract and determined that his MOS was 91A, the applicant stated that the recruiter had told him otherwise.  The 1SG also stated in his sworn statement that the applicant had "done nothing but lie since he has been here.  His lying kept this unit from using him as a medic during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm."

	b.  In a sworn statement, the immediate commander indicated he interviewed the applicant on 29 January 1991 and the applicant stated he was neither trained in nor qualified in MOS 91A and that he enlisted in MOS 81B.  The commander then escorted him to the supporting retention office in Saudi Arabia but no determination could be made regarding his MOS because his enlistment contract was smudged.  However, a few weeks later, when a legible copy of his enlistment contract arrived and the applicant was confronted, he stated that a mistake must have occurred with respect to the MOS.  Meanwhile, the applicant complained to the squadron commander, regimental sergeant major, and company first sergeant about his MOS.  When the unit returned to home station and the applicant's official records were received, they contained a copy of his 91A diploma confirming that his MOS was 91A.  Yet, throughout Operation Desert Storm, the applicant refused to perform any medical duties whatsoever under the excuse that he was not medically trained.  The unit commander also stated that "these actions are viewed by me as false official statements that have prevented this command from utilizing a medic in time of war and medical emergency."

11.  The applicant's records indicate he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 17 July 1991 and on an unknown date (according to his subsequent separation packet).  However, copies of his NJPs are not available for review with this case.

12.  On an unknown date, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for misconduct - commission of a serious offense.  Specifically, the immediate commander stated that the applicant willfully failed to perform duties as a 91A while in a combat zone when his skills were much needed and made false official statements.  He further recommended a general discharge.  The immediate commander further instructed the applicant to execute the acknowledgment of the memorandum of intent to separate him and return it within 7 days.  The applicant was also told his failure to respond would constitute a waiver of his rights to consult with counsel, submit a statement on his own behalf, obtain copies of all documents sent to the separation authority, and/or have a hearing by an administrative board.  The notification memorandum listed his rank as "PFC."

13.  On 30 August 1991, the applicant, while serving in the rank of PFC, submitted a separate statement that shows the following:

	a.  He requested copies of all documents sent to the separation authority including classified documents and stated that under controlled circumstances, he would like to request a hearing before an administrative separation board.  He also stated that it was evident to him through his past experience with his command that it was likely a board would have been biased and inconsiderate of his well-being or his prior military service and as such, he felt he should pursue the truth and justice through the civilian court system.

	b.  He appealed for an honorable discharge and asked the separation authority to take into consideration his entire military and civilian record when determining his character of service.  He reminded the separation authority not to base his character of service on one incident in which he had already received punishment and that the two Article 15's he received as well as this recommendation were all for the same issue.

	c.  His company commander penalized him because he previously wrote to his Member of Congress concerning his problems.  This issue created a personal vendetta against him to destroy his military career and ultimately his civilian career.  His squad leader and platoon sergeant did not have any problems with his performance.  It was his company commander who wanted to destroy him.

14.  On an unknown date in August or September 1991, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated a memorandum recommending his discharge in accordance with paragraph 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. The immediate commander cited that it was neither feasible nor appropriate to expend any further time or efforts towards rehabilitating the applicant to an acceptable level of performance, and conduct.  The applicant's past record, present performance and potential for future service and advancement were also considered, but it was concluded that disposition by any other means would not be in the best interest of the Army.  The memorandum of separation listed his rank as that of a "PFC."

15.  On 6 September 1991, the applicant submitted a statement in which he indicated that he did not wish to waive any rights and that the separation authority should contact his platoon sergeant and squad leader regarding his performance of duty during Operations Desert Shield/ Desert Storm.

16.  On 23 September 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed that the applicant's service be characterized as general under honorable conditions.

17.  On 24 September 1991, the 55th Personnel Service Company published Orders 236-75 directing the applicant's reassignment to the U.S. Army Transition Point, effective 7 October 1991, for the purpose of transition processing.  The orders listed his rank as that of a "PFC."

18.  On 2 October 1991, the applicant completed his outprocessing of the command.  His DA Form 137 (Installation Clearance Record) listed his rank as that of a "PFC."

19.  On 7 October 1991, the U.S. Army Transition Point, Fort Jackson, SC, published an endorsement to the applicant's 24 September 1991 discharge orders, further confirming his effective date of discharge as 7 October 1991.

20.  On 7 October 1991, the applicant was discharged from the Army.  The 
DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense with a general discharge.  He completed a total of 1 year and 
19 days of creditable active military service.  His DD Form 214 also contains the following entries:

	a.  Items 4a and 4b show the entries "PFC" and "E-3."

	b.  Item 12b shows the entry "91  10  07."

	c.  Item 13 shows he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal with 2 bronze service stars, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  Item 13 does not show award of the Combat Medical Badge. 

	d.  Item 14 shows the entry "None."

	e.  Item 26 shows the entry "JKQ."

	f.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows the entry "Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense."

21.  The applicant's records do not contain orders awarding him the Combat Medical Badge or orders promoting him to SGT/E-5.  Additionally, his records do not indicate he completed any training courses within this period of enlistment.

22.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s records that show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

23.  The applicant submitted a copy of a memorandum, dated 9 August 1989, awarding him the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal for his period of service from 29 January 1985 to 8 February 1989 and a copy of a memorandum, dated 23 January 1991, awarding him the Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon for the period 30 December 1989 to      20 January 1990.  He also submitted copies of various certificates, dated on miscellaneous dates throughout his ARNG service that show he completed several military training courses.

24.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides for the following awards:

	a.  The Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KLM-SA) was approved on 3 January 1992 and is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 17 January and 28 February 1991.  The Kuwait Liberation Medal awarded by the Government of Kuwait (KLM-K) was approved on 9 November 1995 and is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who participated in the Persian Gulf War between 2 August 1990 and 31 August 1993.

	b.  The Combat Medical Badge is awarded to medical department personnel (colonel and below) who are assigned or attached to a medical unit of company or smaller size that is organic to an infantry unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size which is engaged in active ground combat.  Battle participation credit is not sufficient; the infantry unit must have been in contact with the enemy and the Soldier must have been personally present and under fire during such ground combat.

25.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The 
DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty to include attendance at basic and advanced training and will be prepared for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active duty service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  The DD Form 214 is not intended to have any legal effect on termination of a Soldier’s service.  Chapter 2 of the version of the regulation in effect at the time stated that:

	a.  Items 4a and 4b show the active duty rank and pay grade at time of the Soldier's separation.

	b.  Item 12 shows the Record of Service.  Extreme care is used when completing this block since post-service benefits, final pay, retirement credit, and so forth are based on this information.  Item 12a shows the beginning date of the continuous period of active duty for issuance of this DD Form 214, for which a DD Form 214 was not previously issued.  Item 12b shows the Soldier’s transition date.  This date may not be the contractual date if Soldier is separated early, voluntarily extends, or is extended for make-up of lost time, or retained on active duty for the convenience of the Government.  Item 12h is obtained from the most recent promotion order (or reduction instrument), shows the effective date of promotion to the current pay grade.

	c.  Item 14 shows the Soldier’s Military Education, which is taken from his records, by listing formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214.  This item includes title, length in weeks, and year completed.

26.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.  Additionally, this regulation:

	a.  Paragraph 2-2(a), that when the reason for separation requires the notification procedure, the commander will notify the Soldier in writing that his separation has been recommended per this regulation.  The commander will cite specific allegations on which the proposed action is based and will also include the specific provisions of this regulation authorizing separation.  The Soldier will be advised whether the proposed separation could result in discharge, release from active duty to a Reserve Component, or release from custody and control of the Army; the least favorable characterization of service or description of separation he could receive; the type of discharge and character of service recommended by the initiating commander and that the intermediate commander may recommend a less favorable type of discharge and characterization of service than that recommended by the initiating commander.

	b.  Paragraph 2-2(c), that the Soldier will be further advised of the following rights:  consult with military counsel within a reasonable time (not less than 3 duty days).  Soldiers may also consult with civilian counsel at their own expense; submit statements in his/her own behalf; obtain copies of documents that will be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation; a hearing before an administrative separation board if he had 6 or more years of total active and Reserve service on the date of initiation of recommendation for separation; and waive the above rights in writing, including the right to submit a conditional waiver of the right to have the case heard before an administrative separation board.  Failure to respond (including failure to submit matters within 
7 duty days will constitute a waiver of the above rights).  An extension will normally be granted until any documents requested by the Soldiers are provided to the Soldier, and the Soldier has a reasonable opportunity to respond to such documents.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7a, states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

27.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes (SPD)) states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are intended exclusively for the internal use of Department of Defense and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data.  The SPD code of "JKQ" is the correct code for Soldiers separating under chapter 14-12(b) of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of Misconduct – Commission of a Serious Offense.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show his rank/grade as SGT/E-5; to change his date of discharge; to show an honorable character of service, all of military education, and awards/decorations, including the Combat Medical Badge; and to change his SPD code and his narrative reason for separation to more favorable reasons.

2.  With respect to his awards and decorations, his records contain memoranda awarding him the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal for his period of service from 29 January 1985 to 8 February 1989 and the Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon for the period 30 December 1989 to     20 January 1990.  Although these awards were earned prior to his period of active service, the regulation provides for the listing of all awards and decorations on the DD Form 214.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of his DD Form 214 to show both awards.

3.  The evidence of record shows he served in Southwest Asia during the Gulf War, in support of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm from 12 December 1990 to 26 April 1991; therefore, he served a qualifying period for award of the KLM-SA and the KLM-K and he is entitled to correction of his records to show these awards.

4.  With respect to the Combat Medical Badge, his medical MOS and service in Southwest Asia are not in question.  Additionally, his participation in the Battle of 73 Easting as a member of the 2nd ACR was considered.  However:

	a.  Most importantly the evidence indicates the applicant did not perform duties in his MOS based on his claim that he was never trained in MOS 91A.

	b.  Battle participation credit is not sufficient for this award.  

5.  With respect to his enlisted grade, the evidence of record shows the applicant accepted NJP during his period of active service.  His record is void of this NJP; however, there is sufficient evidence that shows one of the NJPs resulted in his reduction to a PFC/E-3.  This rank/grade is consistent with that shown on his separation memorandum, installation clearance record, and his discharge orders. Additionally, his record is void of any orders that show he was promoted to SGT/E-5.  Therefore, it is reasonable to presume in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the rank/grade listed on his DD Form 214 is correct.

6.  With respect to his separation date, the evidence of record shows the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge on 23 September 1991 and that discharge orders were published on 24 September 1991 directing that he be transferred to the U.S. Army Transition Point for transition out processing on 7 October 1991.  These orders were further endorsed on 7 October 1991 to confirm his effective date of discharge as 7 October 1991.  This date is consistent with the date shown on his DD Form 214.  There is neither an error nor an injustice.

7.  With respect to his military education, item 14 of the applicant's DD Form 214 lists formal in-service training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records and the applicant did not provide any evidence that shows he successfully completed any in-service training courses during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214.  There is neither an error nor an injustice.

8.  With respect to his character of service, the applicant's records indicate he willfully failed to perform duties in his MOS while in a combat zone when his skills were much needed and he made false official statements with respect to his MOS.  Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him:

	a.  The applicant was advised to acknowledge receipt within 7 days and that failure to do so would indicate his waiver of his rights.  His submission of the self-authored statement on 29 August 1991 indicates that he was notified of the separation action on or before that date.  In his self-authored statement, he indicated that a separation board would have been biased and inconsiderate of his well-being or his prior military service and as such, he felt he should pursue the truth and justice through the civilian court system.  

	b.  His equivocal statement that he did not waive any rights was not sufficient to demand a board.  He chose to sit on the fence as to his right to a board and his command appropriately treated this as a waiver. 

	c.  He indicated that he would pursue his case through the civilian court system; however, there is no evidence that he consulted with a civilian counsel within the timeframe allotted or requested an extension to consult with civilian counsel.

	d.  He submitted a second statement on 6 September 1991 wherein he stated that he did not waive any of his rights.  However, in the absence of documentary evidence that shows he was granted an extension to the 7-day notice to respond to the notification memorandum, it appears that his 6 September 1991 statement was a little too late; he had failed to respond within 7 days and thus waived his rights. 

	e.  He appealed to the separation authority for the issuance of an honorable discharge.  Given that a discharge under other than honorable conditions was 

normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter, it appears the separation authority did in fact consider his entire period of service when the general discharge was issued.  

9.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  He was accordingly separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 
635-200 due to his misconduct.  His discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

10.  The applicant’s SPD code was assigned based on the fact that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  Absent the misconduct, there was no fundamental reason to process the applicant for discharge.  The underlying reason for his discharge was his misconduct.  The only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under this paragraph is "Misconduct" and the appropriate SPD code associated with this discharge is "JKQ." 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ____X___  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 partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding to his DD Form 214 for the period ending 7 October 1991 the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal, the Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon, the KLM-SA, and the KLM-K.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends 

denial of so much of the application that pertains to his rank/grade, date of separation, military education, the character of service, the Combat Medical Badge, the SPD code, and the narrative reason for separation. 




      _______ _   X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090016536



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090016536



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1