IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110024537 


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.  Through a remand action, dated 20 December 2011, the United States Court of Federal Claims, Washington, D.C. requests the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR):

	a.  reconsider its 19 May 2010 decision regarding whether the applicant’s involuntary separation from the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program required approval of the Secretary of the Army;

	b.  consider the applicant's evidence detailing his rehabilitative efforts that would have been considered by the Secretary of the Army in determining if his separation from the AGR Program was appropriate; and

   c.  afford the applicant relief he is entitled to receive, if any.
   
2.  The applicant filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims stating the Army National Guard (ARNG) failed to follow regulations pertaining to his administrative separation from the AGR Program and the ABCMR failed to follow applicable regulations and Department of Defense directives in its review of his case.  

	a.  Specifically, the ABCMR applied the wrong regulation in its decision, citing the authority of National Guard Regulation 600-5 (The AGR Program - Title 32, Full-Time National Guard Duty (FTNGD)) vice Army Regulation 135-178 (ARNG and Army Reserve - Enlisted Administrative Separations), which applies to individuals being involuntarily separated from the AGR Program.  Further, he was unlawfully separated from the AGR Program without a mandatory administrative separation board and without the mandatory approval of the Secretary of the Army.  

	b.  The complaint also states:

* the separation authority failed to consider his potential for rehabilitation and further useful military service
* he was separated without a required screening and evaluation by the Army Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program
* having successfully completed rehabilitation, he was improperly separated as if the separation had been mandatory
* he was separated without notice
* his separation from the AGR Program was not equitable

3.  The applicant provides documentation through counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Via correspondence submitted to the ABCMR during the processing of this case, counsel requests:

	a.  the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) void the applicant's DD Form 214 and DD Forms 215 that separated him from the AGR Program on 31 July 2006; 

	b.  issuance of a new DD Form 214 separating him from the AGR Program on 31 December 2006 and showing in:

* item 19a (Mailing Address After Separation) an address in Dresden, TN
* item 19b (Nearest Relative) "B---- R. B----"
* item 24 (Character of Service) "honorable"
* item 25 (Separation Authority) the appropriate separation authority for retirement from the AGR Program
* item 26 (Separation Code) the separation program designator (SPD) code "RBD" indicating sufficient service for retirement 
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) "AGR Retirement"
* item 27 (Reentry Code) "RE-1"

	c.  the Retirement Point Accounting System (RPAS) be updated to show active duty service in the AGR Program from 1 August to 31 December 2006;

	d.  he be awarded active duty back pay and allowances from 1 August to 31 December 2006;

	e.  he be immediately processed for retirement from the AGR Program;

	f.  he receive military retirement pay and benefits beginning 1 January 2007;

	g.  the orders discharging him from the TXARNG effective 1 September 2006 be revoked;

	h.  new orders be issued discharging him from the TXARNG effective 31 December 2006;

	i.  the orders transferring him to the Retired Reserve effective 2 September 2006 be revoked;

	j.  new orders be published indicating active duty retirement effective 1 January 2007 and transfer to the Retired Reserve;

	k.  he be provided a new National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) for the period 12 February 1993 to 31 December 2006;  

	l.  he be provided an Honorable Discharge Certificate effective 31 December 2006; and

	m.  he be contacted by the TXARNG to be afforded the opportunity to personally review his new DD Form 214 and NGB Form 22 for completeness and accuracy prior to publication and that he be afforded the opportunity to sign both documents.

2.  Counsel further requests that the applicant be granted a personal appearance before the ABCMR with counsel; that the Board considering this case be composed of members fully familiar with the AGR Program and Title 32, U.S. Code; and that counsel be provided an advance copy of the decision document prior to publication and be given an opportunity to respond.  

3.  Counsel summarizes the issues identified in the complaint filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims.  

4.  Counsel provides documents identified in a table of contents.


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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20090014123 on 19 May 2010.

2.  On 11 February 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Alabama Army National Guard (ALARNG).  On 1 June 1983, he entered active duty for basic combat training, and on 2 August 1983, he was released from active duty (REFRAD).  

3.  On 11 June 1984, he entered active duty to attend advanced individual training (AIT).  On 21 August 1984, upon completion of AIT, he was honorably REFRAD.  

4.  On 12 September 1985, he entered full-time National Guard duty (FTNGD) in the AGR Program.  On 11 September 1991, he was honorably REFRAD upon reaching the expiration of his term of service.  

5.  On 10 January 1992, he was discharged from the ALARNG to accept appointment as an officer.  On 11 February 1992, his appointment was terminated, and he was discharged.

6.  On 12 February 1993, he enlisted in the TXARNG for 3 years.

7.  On 1 September 1993, he entered FTNGD in the AGR Program.  He remained in this status until he was REFRAD in 2006.  During this period, on 14 December 1994, he transferred to the Mississippi ARNG, and, on 27 September 2001, he transferred to the TXARNG.

8.  On 24 February 2004, he was notified he had completed the required years of service to be eligible for retired pay upon application at age 60.  

9.  On 20 December 2004, his commanding officer was notified the applicant had tested positive for a cocaine metabolite.

10.  On 5 January 2005, his commander notified him he was recommending his discharge from the TXARNG and the Reserve of the Army under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26e(2), and Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 7-11c(1), for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  The reason for the recommendation was a positive test for an illegal substance.  

11.  ARNG Retirement Points History Statements in his record show he had completed more than 18 years of active duty service at the time he was notified of the pending action to separate him.

12.  On 7 January 2005, he acknowledged receipt of the notification of separation.  He stated he had been advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He waived his right to appointed counsel for consultation.  He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers and personal appearance before such a board.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

13.  On 14 January 2005, his civilian counsel submitted a request to his command requesting a stay of his REFRAD.  Counsel stated the separation action was proposed without regard to applicable regulatory guidance and that the notification failed to comply with notice requirements under the notification procedures or the administrative board procedure requiring he be given the opportunity to submit a formal written response or rebuttal prior to any action to separate him.

14.  The available records include correspondence from his counsel indicating the action to separate him was suspended indefinitely at some point in 2005.

15.  The record is void of documentation showing a board of officers convened to consider the applicant's separation or that he appeared before such a board.  

16.  The record is void of documentation showing the action to separate him was referred to the Secretary of the Army for approval.  

17.  On 31 July 2006, he was REFRAD under honorable conditions by reason of involuntary separation for cause from FTNGD.  On or about 8 September 2010, the DD Form 214 issued at the time was voided because it contained numerous errors.  A reissued DD Form 214 covering the period 1 September 1993 to 31 July 2006 shows in item:  

* 12c (Net Active Service this Period) – 12 years, 11 months
* 12d (Total Prior Active Service) – 6 years
* 19a – an address in Cedar Park, TX
* 19b – "B---- B----" and an address in Dresden, TN
* 23 – Release from active duty
* 24 – General - Under Honorable Conditions
* 25 – National Guard Regulation 600-5, paragraphs 6-5b(4) and 6-5c(2)
* 26 – JKK
* 27 – RE-3
* 28 – "involuntarily separated for cause from FTGND"

18.  The most recent ARNG Retirement Points History Statement available in his record, dated 1 February 2007, shows that, as of 31 July 2006, he had completed a total of 7,157 days of active duty service (19 years, 7 months, and 9 days). 

19.  On 30 January 2007, the Adjutant General's Department, Army National Guard, Texas Military Forces, Austin, TX, issued Orders 030-1010 discharging him from the ARNG and assigning him to the Retired Reserve effective 1 September 2006.  

20.  The available records do not include an NGB Form 22 for the period ending with his assignment to the Retired Reserve.

21.  On 19 January 2012, during the processing of this case, the Chief, Personnel Policy Division, National Guard Bureau (NGB), provided an advisory opinion recommending approval of the applicant's request.  The advisory official stated:

	a.  On 31 July 2006, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-5, paragraphs 6-5(b)(4) and 6-5(c)(2), the applicant was involuntarily separated for cause from FTNGD.  He requested sanctuary consideration as he was within 2 years of reaching 20 years of active Federal service (AFS).  There is no indication the TXARNG submitted a request to the Secretary of the Army for authority to release him from the AGR Program in accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-5, paragraph 6-1(b)(1).  Upon involuntary separation from the program, he had a total of 19 years, 7 months, and 9 days of AFS.

	b.  The ABCMR previously concluded the applicant did not fall in the category of sanctuary as he had over 20 qualifying years of service for non-regular retirement.  However, as a matter of law and policy under National Guard Regulation 600-5 and Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 12686 (10 USC 12686), because he had attained more than 18 years of AFS, he was entitled to have his case reviewed by the Secretary of the Army before being released from the AGR program short of qualifying for regular retirement.  

	c.  The language in 10 USC 12686 can lead one to conclude that this provision of law does not apply to National Guard AGR Soldiers on FTNGD as opposed to active duty, but Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 12602 (10 USC 12602) provides that FTNGD will be considered active duty for the purpose of benefits.  The Army has incorporated this provision of law regarding sanctuary in Army Regulation 135-18, paragraph 4-6(f), mirroring the provision in National Guard Regulation 600-5, which addresses both active duty and FTNGD sanctuary for AGR personnel.

	d.  The fact that the applicant had over 20 years of qualifying service toward non-regular retirement would only be relevant if he were eligible to begin drawing that retirement immediately upon REFRAD from the AGR Program.  This was not the case.  Retired Reserve Component Soldiers typically begin drawing retired pay at age 60.  The applicant was age 41 at the time he was REFRAD from the AGR Program, thus he was not eligible to begin drawing his non-regular retirement for another 19 years.  Regular retirement accrues immediately regardless of age.  Therefore, his having qualified for non-regular retirement pay at some future date is not a relevant consideration in this case.  Regular retirement sanctuary pursuant to 10 USC 12686 can apply to a Soldier who has 20 years of qualifying service for a non-regular retirement.

	e.  The TXARNG had a clear and unambiguous responsibility to secure the approval of the Secretary of the Army before releasing the applicant from the AGR Program.  It appears the TXARNG did not attempt to obtain the proper separation authority.  Experience shows that, had it reached his desk, the Secretary of the Army would likely have approved the request given the facts of the case.  However, experience also shows it would have taken 6 to 9 months to procure such approval.  At the time of his REFRAD, the applicant was approximately 4 months and 3 weeks away from achieving 20 years of AFS, making it unlikely that the Secretary of the Army would have acted on the request in time to prevent his regular retirement from vesting.

	f.  A State's obligation to submit REFRAD requests for Soldiers with more than 18 but less than 20 years of AFS to the Secretary of the Army for review is not merely a technical, administrative requirement.  It is a vital procedure and substantive due process protection for the Soldier.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no State "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."  Furthermore, the extent of the due process provided must be commensurate with the right of which an individual is being deprived.  A Soldier's interest in qualifying for retired pay is a property right subject to this Constitutional provision.  Given the great personal investment in such potential retired pay and the financial value of such retired pay when vested, a high level of due process is appropriate when contemplating depriving a Soldier of the opportunity to qualify for it.  The requirement to obtain Secretary of the Army approval prior to the REFRAD of a Soldier in these circumstances provides that level of due process.  

22.  The advisory official concluded the applicant's record should be corrected by:

	a.  amending his DD Form 214 to show he was REFRAD on 31 December 2006;

	b.  paying him applicable back pay and allowances from 1 August 2006 through 31 December 2006;

	c.  amending Orders 030-1010 to show his effective date of REFRAD as 31 December 2006; and

	d.  initiating applicable retirement pay processing with an effective retirement date of 1 January 2007.

23.  On 29 March 2012, the applicant's counsel responded to the advisory opinion.  Counsel agreed with the advisory opinion with one exception.  Counsel took issue with the portion of the advisory opinion which stated the Secretary of the Army would have approved the applicant's separation had he received the recommendation in time to act upon it.  Approving the recommendation would have been in violation of the Army Substance Abuse Program.  It is also unlikely that, in view of the applicant's accomplishments, efforts at rehabilitation, and the brief period of active duty that would have remained before the applicant would have completed 20 years of AFS, the Secretary of the Army would have made a decision that would have resulted in him forfeiting his active duty retirement. 

24.  Army Regulation 135-178 states service in an AGR status (either active duty or FTNGD) is creditable as qualifying service for both active service and non-regular service retirement.

25.  National Guard Regulation 600-5, paragraph 6-1b(1), states AGR Soldiers within 2 years of becoming eligible for retired or retainer pay will not be involuntarily released from FTNGD unless release is approved by the Secretary of the Army.  

26.  10 USC 12602 states that, for the purposes of laws providing benefits for members of the Army National Guard of the United States and their dependents and beneficiaries, FTNGD performed by a member of the ARNG of the United States (ARNGUS) shall be considered active duty in Federal service as a Reserve of the Army.  

27.  10 USC 12686 states that, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a member of a Reserve Component who is on active duty (other than for training) and is within two years of becoming eligible for retired pay or retainer pay under a purely military retirement system (other than the retirement system under chapter 1223 (Retired Pay for Non-regular Service)), may not be involuntarily released from that duty before he becomes eligible for that pay, unless the release is approved by the Secretary.

28.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 3914, states that, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, an enlisted member of the Army who has at least 20, but less than 30, years of service computed under Section 3925 of this title may, upon his request, be retired. 

29.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 3925, states that for the purpose of determining whether an enlisted member of the Army may be retired under section 3914 of this title, his years of service are computed by adding all active service in the armed forces.

30.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) states to prepare NGB Form 22 for every Soldier being separated from the ARNG or released from the custody and control of the military, unless the Soldier is being discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment, executes an interstate transfer, or the Soldier dies.  It further states to prepare DD Form 214 in addition to an NGB Form 22 for AGR Title 32 Soldiers being separated from the ARNG when they are released from AGR service.  If the Soldier is unavailable to sign the NGB Form 22, "Soldier not available to sign" is entered in item 20 (Signature of Person Discharged).  

31.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 states NGB Form 55b (Honorable Discharge from the Federally Recognized ARNG, Transferred to the U.S. Army Retired Reserve) is issued to Soldiers separated from the ARNG and concurrently transferred to the Retired Reserve with honor.

32.  National Guard Regulation 600-5 states enlisted Soldiers will retire [from the AGR Program] in the grade held on the date of retirement in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 12.

33.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12, provides the rules and guidelines for processing Soldiers for retirement based on years of service, including Soldiers retiring from the AGR Program.  It states Soldiers retiring for length of service will be placed on the retired list only on the first day of a month, with release from active duty on the last day of the preceding month.  

34.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 lists the narrative reasons for separation and associated SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The regulation states SPD code "RBD" and the narrative reason "sufficient service for retirement" apply to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635–200, chapter 12.

35.  The SPD/RE Code Cross-Reference Table, dated 15 June 2006, states RE code "4R" is associated with SPD code "RBD."

36.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  It establishes standardized policy for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states for item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated), when the Soldier is not available (discharged in absentia or physically unable), enter “SOLDIER NOT AVAILABLE TO SIGN.”

37.  Army Regulation 15-185 governs the operations of the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the Director of the ABCMR or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing before which the applicant, counsel, and witnesses may appear whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence clearly shows a failure to provide due process to the applicant during his REFRAD processing.  

2.  When he was informed of the proposed action to separate him from the AGR Program in 2005, a review of his record would have shown that he had completed more than 18 years of active duty service creditable toward retirement.  The governing regulations clearly state that Soldiers with more than 18 years of active duty service will not be separated without obtaining the approval of the Secretary of the Army.  

3.  As stated in the NGB advisory opinion, the ABCMR previously concluded the applicant was not protected by the provisions of 10 USC 12686 because he had over 20 qualifying years of service for non-regular retirement.  However, there is no provision of law stating a Soldier who has completed the required years of service for a non-regular retirement is thereby exempted from other requirements of law pertaining to those who have attained more than 18 years of AFS.  

4.  His eligibility for non-regular retirement is not relevant.  He had completed more than 18 years of AFS.  Therefore, he was entitled to have his case reviewed by the Secretary of the Army before being released from the AGR program.  This did not happen.  

5.  The record shows the action to REFRAD him had languished for more than a year, when, on 31 July 2006, he was summarily REFRAD without the due process afforded him by law.  Effective 1 September 2006, he was honorably discharged from the TXARNG and transferred to the Retired Reserve.  

6.  He would have reached 20 years of AFS in December 2006.  Had he continued to serve, he would have been REFRAD on 31 December 2006 and placed on the retired list on 1 January 2007.  

7.  The failure to afford the applicant due process constitutes a significant injustice.  While the Secretary of the Army may have decided his misconduct warranted release from the AGR Program regardless of his years of service, the TXARNG did not attempt to obtain the Secretary's review as required by law. 

8.  In the interest of justice, notwithstanding the misconduct the applicant engaged in that placed him in these circumstances, it would be appropriate to correct his record to show he was honorably retired by reason of sufficient service for retirement on 31 December 2006, transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 1 January 2007, and to pay him any pay and allowances and retired pay he is due as a result of these corrections.  

9.  A Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election must be made prior to the effective date of retirement or the SBP will, by law, default to automatic SBP spouse 
coverage (if married).  This correction of records may have an effect on the applicant’s SBP status/coverage.  The applicant is advised to contact his nearest Retirement Services Officer (RSO) for information and assistance immediately.  A listing of RSOs by country, state, and installation is available on the Internet at website http://www.armyg1.army.mil/RSO/rso.asp.  The RSO can also assist with any TRICARE questions the applicant may have.

10.  It would also be appropriate to revoke the orders discharging him from the TXARNG and to issue new orders discharging him from the TXARNG effective 31 December 2006 and transferring him to the Retired Reserve effective 1 January 2007.  

11.  He was not issued an NGB Form 22 documenting his final period of ARNG service.  He is entitled to be issued this document, which should also show he was discharged on 31 December 2006.  

12.  He is also entitled to be issued an NGB Form 55b for the period ending 31 December 2006.  Issuing this document satisfies counsel's request that the applicant receive an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

13.  Counsel requests issuance of a new DD Form 214 separating him from the AGR Program on 31 December 2006.  In its advisory opinion, the NGB recommended correcting the current DD Form 214.  The current DD Form 214 contains information that, as a result of the TXARNG's failure to provide due process, is unfairly prejudicial to the applicant.  Accordingly, it would be appropriate to issue a new DD Form 214 showing his service was fully honorable, which is the appropriate characterization of service for those who have completed sufficient active duty service for retirement.  

14.  Counsel requests that a new DD Form 214 show in:

* item 19a (Mailing Address After Separation) – an address in Dresden, TN
* item 19b (Nearest Relative) – "B---- R. B----"
* item 24 (Character of Service) – "honorable"
* item 25 (Separation Authority) – the appropriate separation authority for retirement from the AGR Program
* item 26 (Separation Code) – the separation program designator (SPD) code "RBD" indicating sufficient service for retirement 
* item 27 (Reentry Code) – "RE-1"
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "AGR Retirement"

15.  With the exception of requested entries in items 27 and 28, the entries requested by counsel are appropriate.  

16.  Counsel requests the entry "RE-1" in item 27.  The entry prescribed by regulation for individuals retired based on years of service is "RE-4R."  This is the entry that should be shown in item 27 of the new DD Form 214.

17.  Counsel requests the entry "AGR Retirement" in item 28.  The proper authority for his separation from the AGR Program is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12.  The narrative reason for separation prescribed by regulation for this separation authority is "sufficient service for retirement."  This is the entry that should be shown in item 28 of the new DD Form 214.  



18.  The applicant's record in RPAS should be corrected to show additional active duty service in the AGR Program from 1 August to 31 December 2006.   

19.  Counsel requests the applicant be contacted by the TXARNG to be afforded the opportunity to personally review his new DD Form 214 and NGB Form 22 for completeness and accuracy prior to publication and that he be afforded the opportunity to sign both documents.  The governing regulations provide that, if he or she is not available, the individual being discharged need not review or sign the DD Form 214 or NGB Form 22 prior to issuance of the forms.  Concerns about the accuracy of those forms are understandable; however, issuance of these forms is a routine matter and it would be premature to presume that either will contain errors that do harm to the applicant.  If, upon receiving the forms, the applicant identifies any entries he believes are in error, he may apply to the appropriate authority for corrections.

20.  Counsel requests a personal appearance before the ABCMR.  The available evidence is sufficient for a fair and impartial consideration of his case without such an appearance.

21.  Counsel requests that the Board considering this case be composed of members fully familiar with the AGR Program and Title 32, U.S. Code.  There is no provision of law or regulation specifying that a Board should be composed of members with expertise in any specific program or provisions of law.  A routinely-composed Board is sufficient for fair and impartial consideration of this case.

22.  Counsel requests he be provided an advance copy of the ABCMR decision document prior to publication and that he be given an opportunity to respond.  It is not the practice of the Board to provide advance copies of decisions.  Counsel and the applicant will be notified of the outcome of this case through the normal process and procedures.  

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 partial amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AR20090014123, dated 19 May 2010.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

	a.  voiding his DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 July 2006;

	b.  revoking TXARNG Orders 030-1010, dated 30 January 2007; 

	c.  issuing orders discharging him from the TXARNG effective 31 December 2006 and transferring him to the Retired Reserve effective 1 January 2007; 

	d.  issuing him a DD Form 214 covering the period 1 September 1993 to 31 December 2006 showing:

* all appropriate entries for an individual who had completed sufficient service for an honorable retirement under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 12
* entries in items 19a and 19b as specified by counsel

	e.  issuing him an NGB Form 22 for the period of service ending 31 December 2006;

	f.  issuing him an NGB Form 55b for the period ending 31 December 2006; 

	g.  correcting his RPAS record to show additional active duty service from 1 August to 31 December 2006; and

	h.  paying him any pay and allowances and retired pay he is due as a result of these corrections.

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 the requested entries for items 27 and 28 of his DD Form 214, being afforded the opportunity to review 


and sign his DD Form 214 and NGB Form 22, and a personal appearance before the Board.


      
      _______ _ XXX______   ___
               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)                                         AR20110024537





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110024537



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1