IN THE CASE OF:  	

		BOARD DATE:  30 December 2014	

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012021


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 military records through a court remand by showing that his honorable discharge was changed to a retirement due to physical disability.  He further requests the following two documents be expunged from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF):

* DA Form 67-6 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 11 October 1968 through 28 February 1969
* DA Form 1059 (Academic Evaluation Report (AER)), dated 18 December 1972, for the period 24 January to 30 June 1972

2.  On 6 February 2014, the applicant filed a complaint with this court seeking judicial review of the ABCMR decisions.  On 21 May 2014, the Secretary of the Army filed a motion to remand the case to the Department of the Army for further consideration.

3.  In a 6-page memorandum and order on the applicant's motion to remand, dated 10 July 2014, the court ordered the applicant's case remanded to the Board for reconsideration.  The U.S. District Judge provided the following background facts, analysis, and conclusion supporting his decision to remand the case:

	a.  This claim arose out of the U.S. Army's denial of a veteran's petitions for correction of his military records based on an improper refusal to expunge an adverse AER and an adverse OER.

	b.  The Secretary of the Army conceded that the ABCMR denied the applicant's request without having considered all of the materials he provided and moved to remand the case to the ABCMR for reconsideration on that basis.

     c.  When an agency has not considered all relevant factors when making its decision, the proper course generally is to remand the matter to the agency for reconsideration.  Voluntary remands are commonly granted because they allow agencies to correct their own mistakes without expending the resources of the court in reviewing a record that is admittedly incomplete or incorrect.

     d.  In this case, the Secretary of the Army has acknowledged that the ABCMR denied the applicant's request for reconsideration without considering the entire record and asks for a remand to correct the mistake.  Therefore, the remand was granted with the following conditions:

* Applicant shall submit within 30 days of the remand any additional evidence that he wishes the ABCMR to consider in its review
* Purpose of remand is to permit the ABCMR an opportunity to review and render a decision regarding the matters raised in the applicant's reconsideration requests
* If the ABCMR has not rendered a decision within 180 days of the date of the remand order [10 July 2014] then the applicant may seek appropriate relief in this court
* Within 30 days after a final action by the ABCMR, the parties shall file a copy of the ABCMR decision, along with a joint status report setting forth the parties' positions as to whether this case is moot or needs to be placed on the Court's active docket

4.  Provided are the following documents:

	a.  Exhibit 1: Amended Complaint (39 pages of narrative with enclosures), dated 24 February 2014.

* Enclosure A:  Progress Note (2 pages), dated 30 April 2008
* Enclosure B:  U.S. Army Vietnam Form 157-R (Recommendation for Decoration for Valor or Merit) (3 pages), dated 24 August 1969
* Enclosure C:  Letter of support (3 pages), dated 3 July 2008

	b.  Exhibit 2:  Memorandum in support of applicant's opposition to the Army's motion for voluntary remand for further administrative proceedings (6 pages with enclosures), dated 4 June 2014.

* Enclosure 1:  A copy of the applicant's letter to the Board (16 pages), dated 18 June 2008
* Enclosure 2:  A copy of the applicant's letter to the Board (5 pages), dated 27 June 2008
* Enclosure 3:  Affidavit (1 page), dated 4 June 2014, with two attached letter responses he received from this Agency, dated 5 August and     28 October 2009
* Enclosure 4:  OER (3 pages), for the period 30 August 1969 through
10 February 1970
* Enclosure 5:  OER (3 pages), for the period 11 February through
17 July 1970
* Enclosure 6:  OER (2 pages), for the period 18 July though
17 September 1970 
* Enclosure 7:  OER (4 pages) for period 21 September 1970 through
14 January 1971
* Enclosure 8:  Applicant's letter to Department of Justice (1 page), dated 14 May 2014

	c.  Exhibit 3:  Memorandum and Order on the applicant's motion to remand
(6 pages), dated 10 July 2014.

	d.  Exhibit 4:  Order of Remand, U.S. District Judge, dated 10 July 2014.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  In 1967, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Corps of Engineers.  He completed both the Airborne Course and Ranger School and was assigned to the 47th Engineer Battalion as a platoon leader.

2.  On 15 November 1968, the applicant was deployed to the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).  While in the RVN, he was promoted to captain and saw extensive combat.  He was regularly subjected to intense enemy fire and earned the Silver Star, Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device, Combat Infantryman Badge, and two Purple Hearts.

3.  The applicant received an unfavorable OER for the period ending on 
28 February 1969, which he sought to have expunged on the grounds of inaccuracy, lack of specificity, and administrative error.

4.  In April 1971, the applicant was medically evacuated from the RVN with serious injuries which included the loss of sight in his right eye.  He was initially found to be medically unfit for duty; but, after imploring his surgeons to reconsider, he was found fit for duty in October 1971.  He was discharged from the hospital and returned to duty.

5.  In January 1972, the applicant was assigned as a student officer in the Officer Undergraduate Degree Completion Program.  However, he lost the ability to concentrate and to complete the coursework.  He missed classes and eventually found it difficult to get out of bed.  His request to be relieved of his academic assignment was initially denied; but after continued poor performance, he was reassigned.  He subsequently received an adverse AER as a result of his poor academic performance.

6.  In August 1972, the applicant was assigned to the 1st Special Forces in Okinawa, Japan.

7.  In 1973, the applicant was selected for involuntary release from active duty (REFRAD) as part of a reduction in force.  The only OER he received between the termination of his academic period and REFRAD recommended that he be promoted ahead of his contemporaries.  On 3 December 1973, he was REFRAD with an honorable characterization of service.

8.  The applicant subsequently served in a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Troop Program Unit (TPU).  He received successful OERs at least for the periods       15 March 1974 through 1 May 1977 as a Motor Officer, Battalion S-4, Logistics Officer S-4, and Operations and Training Officer; he was promoted to major on 15 December 1977; and he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve on 18 April 1985.

9.  In 2006, a private therapist determined that the applicant's academic failure was due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The therapist concluded that combat losses suffered by his previous unit less than 30 days after his departure had triggered major depression.

10.  On 27 April 2007, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) psychologist examined the applicant and diagnosed him as having severe PTSD and major depressive disorder secondary to PTSD.  The psychologist also attributed his academic failure to PTSD.  On 31 October 2007, a different psychologist conducted a neurological/psychological examination and concluded his psychological and psychiatric symptoms were likely related to multiple traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) that occurred during his service in the RVN.

11.  On 31 July 2007, the applicant requested that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) expunge the adverse AER and OER from his records and change his characterization of service to show he was retired due to physical disability instead of honorably released, effective 3 December 1973.  The ABCMR denied his request on 12 February 2008.

12.  On 12 February 2008, the ABCMR initially considered the applicant's request as incorporated in Docket Number AR20070011022 on 12 February 2008 to:

	a.  expunge an AER, dated 18 December 1972, for the period 24 January to 30 June 1972;

	b.  expunge an OER covering the period 11 October 1968 through
28 February 1969;

	c.  correct his DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 10 October 1973, to find him unfit for duty due to PTSD and mild TBI with residuals of post-concussive syndrome;

	d.  retire him due to disability (PTSD and TBI), rated as 70 percent disabling, effective 3 December 1973; and 

	e.  grant him retired pay and allowances effective 3 December 1973.

13.  The Board determined the available evidence did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Accordingly, the overall merits of the case were insufficient to warrant any correction.  The Board denied the applicant's request.  The Board's discussion and conclusions included:

	a.  The applicant's request for a change in his record rested on the premise that had his PTSD, severe depression, and TBI been properly diagnosed at the time of his release he would have been found unfit for duty and medically retired.  He also contended that, due to his mental condition, his performance of duty became unsatisfactory and he could not complete his college education which resulted in an adverse academic report.  Ultimately he was REFRAD because of the adverse academic report.

	b.  The applicant was identified for inclusion in the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and underwent both an Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and PEB.  The PEB found the applicant's service was soon to be terminated for reasons other than disability and his continued performance of duty gave rise to the "presumption of fitness."  Under the "presumption of fitness" rule, when a Soldier continues to perform military duties up to the expiration term of service or retirement date, that Soldier is presumed to have been physically fit.  The presumption is rebuttable by evidence that shows:  an acute, grave illness or injury occurred which prevented the Soldier from performing further duty; a serious deterioration of a previously diagnosed condition, to include a chronic condition, which would preclude further service (if the Soldier were not separating/retiring); and/or a chronic condition for which the Soldier was referred, and a preponderance of evidence establishes that the Soldier was not performing duties befitting his or her experience, grade, rank, or rating.  In other words, because his military service was not interrupted by a physical disability, notwithstanding the presence of various medical conditions, there was no evidence to show he suffered from any medical condition of such severity that he was rendered unable to reasonably perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating.  The applicant concurred with the PEB's findings and waived a formal board.  He did not provide competent medical evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of fitness.

	c.  Other evidence in the applicant's record supports that his military service was not interrupted by a physical disability.  He held many different positions as an officer while on active duty and as a member of the USAR and, although he contends that his performance became unsatisfactory because of his mental condition, his OERs tell a completely different story and show that before and after the adverse OER his performance was normally rated as excellent.  Further, he was promoted to major, completed the Infantry Officer Advanced Course, and received a personal award while a member of the USAR.  All of these facts also add to the presumption of fitness.

	d.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded service connection for the applicant’s physical and mental conditions is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Army purposes.

	e.  The VA rating decision provided by the applicant does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or disability separation from the Army.  Operating under different laws and its own policies and regulations, the VA, which has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service, and awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service; i.e., service-connected.  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 unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.  The applicant was not service-connected for PTSD until 34 years after he left active duty and there is no competent medical evidence to show he had any of the mental conditions while on active duty.  Further, his VA examiner noted that his depression did not affect him until 2002 after a successful civilian work history, to include owning his own business; that his marriage was intact; and he had good relations with his children.
	f.  In regard to the expunction of the contested AER, the evidence shows he failed 4 of 5 courses at the University of Massachusetts in the Spring 1972.  The applicant contends this coincides with his first depressive episode which broke his concentration and his ability to continue with his education.  However, he failed to provide any medical evidence showing that he sought medical attention for depression or that he was diagnosed with depression at that time.  A major finding by his rater in the adverse OER was that he had a negative attitude towards learning material, which was job-oriented, whether it was from his own or others' experience, or through study of appropriate literature.  New or difficult tasks, particularly those which required a special learning effort on his part, seldom received more than cursory attention.  He again attempted to complete his education in the Fall 1973, Spring 1975, Fall 1975, Summer 1976, Spring 1977 and Spring 1978 withdrawing from the majority of his classes each time.  Of particular interest is that during this entire period he was a member of a TPU, never missing a drilling assembly, he received outstanding OERs, and apparently was successful in his civilian career.  There is insufficient evidence to show the AER was in error or is now unjust.

	g.  Although the University of Massachusetts changed his "incompletes" and "F's" on all his transcripts and he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in History in 2007, these actions do not constitute a basis for removing the applicant's AER.

	h.  The applicant makes many allegations regarding his adverse OER, specifically on the timeliness of the report.  This is far removed from the event and without any supporting evidence for his allegations, administrative regularity must be presumed.  It is presumed that it was prepared by the properly designated rating officials and represents the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Both the rater and endorser specified the reasons for their evaluations and provided pertinent comments.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an OER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action to correct an apparent material error or inaccuracy is warranted.  The applicant's allegations alone are insufficient to overcome the presumptions above.

14.  On 13 February 2008, applicant submitted his request for reconsideration which was presented to the Board on 19 June 2008.  The applicant requested that his earlier request to expunge his AER and OER be granted.  He also requested that his PEB, dated 10 October 1973, be corrected to show he was found unfit for duty and that he was retired due to physical disability effective
3 December 1973 with all retroactive benefits and monies due as a result of the correction.

15.  The Board determined that the available evidence was insufficient and did not demonstrate a probable error or injustice.  Accordingly, his request for reconsideration was denied.  The Board's discussion and conclusions included:

	a.  The applicant requested that his DA Form 1059 for the period 24 January through 30 June 1972 be expunged from his records.  He contended, in effect, that the DA Form 1059, which he received after he had withdrawn from his Army-paid-for civilian school after failing 4 of 5 courses, should be expunged because he was suffering from PTSD and the effects of a TBI.  He contended, in effect, that it should be expunged because the University of Massachusetts later backdated the date of his degree to 31 May 1978, basically agreeing that his academic performance was severely impacted by his PTSD and mild TBI.

	b.  As noted in the previous consideration of his case, a major finding by his rater in the adverse OER was that he had a negative attitude toward learning material, whether it was from his own or others’ experience or through study of appropriate literature.  The University of Massachusetts was free to be as generous in their interpretation of the circumstances of the applicant’s withdrawal as they pleased.  However, the fact that in 2008 the University backdated his degree to 31 May 1978 is insufficient evidence to show there was an error on the Army’s part.

	c.  The applicant requested that his OER for the period 11 October 1968 through 28 February 1969 be expunged from his records.  He makes no contentions concerning this OER with his current application; however, in his original application he contended that his TBI and his PTSD caused his inadequate duty performance while on active duty.

	d.  It appears the applicant received one adverse OER while on active duty, the contested OER for the period 11 October 1968 through 28 February 1969.

	e.  The applicant received two subsequent OERs while on active duty, one for the period ending 1 November 1972 and one for the period ending 24 July 1973. Both OERs were very favorable, which tends to indicate that neither a TBI nor PTSD was the cause of the inadequate duty performance that resulted in the contested OER.  In any case, he provides no evidence to show that the inadequate duty performance that resulted in the contested OER was the result of a TBI or PTSD.

	f.  The applicant also requested that the PEB, dated 10 October 1973, be corrected to show that he was found to be unfit for duty and that he was retired due to disability effective 3 December 1973 with all retroactive benefits and monies due to him.
	g.  The mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury.  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.

	h.  The applicant’s subsequent successful military career for an additional           12 years despite his disabilities, even his eye condition, clearly indicates that he did not meet the criteria for a disability retirement in 1973.

16.  The applicant sent a Letter of Transmittal, dated 18 June 2008, to the ABCMR wherein he indicated that he was sending a letter dated 18 June 2008 with seven enclosures and an Appendix A with 20 enclosures as additional evidence for reconsideration by the Board.  The file copy indicates that these documents were received in the Army Review Boards Agency on 19 June 2008.

17.  In a letter dated 27 June 2008, the applicant responded to the ABCMR notification of denial, dated 23 June 2008.  He asked in this letter for an explanation as to how the Board failed to consider the additional evidence he had sent on 18 June 2008, just 1 day prior to when the Board had reconsidered his case.

18.  In a letter dated 5 July 2008, the applicant provided a copy of an unsigned letter of support, dated 3 July 2008, from a retired Army colonel contending to be the reviewer for the subject OER.  On 24 July 2008, the applicant again requested reconsideration of his request.  He attached a retyped and signed copy of the 3 July 2008 information and asserted that this letter would have a material effect on the deliberation and decision to be made by the ABCMR on his case.

	a.  The author of the subject letter states he was the reviewer for an OER rendered on the applicant for the period 11 October 1968 to 28 February 1969.

	b.  He identifies, in this letter, who the rater and senior rater were on the OER and argues that this OER is inconsistent with all others the applicant received.

	c.  He never met the applicant.  The rater had written his evaluation prior to the author's arrival in the unit.  The senior rater's written evaluation was done 
4 months after the rater's evaluation.  The author signed as reviewer about 
3 weeks later.

	d.  The author does not remember knowing the rater, and only remembers the senior rater's name.  He does not remember having any discussion about this OER or that any questions were raised about the extended time between the rating and the endorsement.  Further, the author does not recall any specific discussion about his responsibility for informing the applicant of the negative report or any specific action that was taken in this matter.

	e.  The author accepts responsibility for any error that may have occurred.  The author contends that the manner in which the OER was handled within the brigade raises serious questions about its legitimacy.  He strongly recommended serious consideration be given to expunging it from his record.  Such action would not change any of the events which have become a part of the applicant's life but would give him the personal satisfaction of having the record show he was a far better Soldier than the subject OER suggests.

	f.  Errors were obviously made.  By taking this action, an injustice will be corrected and fairness will be served.

19.  On 29 July 2008, the Case Management Division, Army Review Boards Agency, replied to the applicant, informing him that his request was returned without action because he was no longer eligible for another reconsideration of his case.

20.  A complete and thorough review of the applicant's hardcopy OMPF failed to reveal a copy of the subject OER supposedly rating the applicant adversely for the period from 11 October 1968 to 28 February 1969.  A review of the applicant's DA Form 66 (Officer Personnel Record) shows "NONE," indicating that no OER was rendered for the period 11 October 1968 to 28 February 1969.

21.  The applicant's OMPF contains a 1st indorsement to a comment sent from the Office of The Adjutant General (TAG) on 21 December 1971.  The subject of this communication was the subject OER.  The applicant stated, in his response to TAG, that he was detailed as a motor officer and was not a platoon leader at the time.  He further stated that the delay of the report created a greater adverse affect on him because he had been promoted to captain.  The OER showed both he and his rater were first lieutenants.  He also stated that even though he was still a member of the same unit, he had not received any notice of this adverse report.  A timely notice would have facilitated his submission of a reclama.  He claimed that he had not learned about the OER until his visit to the Engineer Branch in June 1971.  Lastly, he points out that the subject OER is inconsistent with all other evaluations received both prior to and after it.

22.  A review of the applicant's OMPF revealed a photocopy of the reverse side of a DA Form 1059 indicating that the applicant had withdrawn from school on 
30 June 1972, after he had failed four of five courses.  Also in his OMPF was a request dated 26 January 1973 asking for a copy of the applicant's academic report for the period 24 January to 29 June 1972.  No copy of the requested academic report was found in the OMPF.

23.  Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Efficiency Reports), then in effect, prescribed the officer efficiency reporting system of the U.S. Army.  It included detailed instructions for the preparation, processing, and use of the U.S. Army OER.

	a.  Paragraph 1-2b stated each report was intended to report manner of performance of specific duties and for specific periods in a form which was readily usable by boards appointed for various personnel activities, such as promotions, and in the assignment of officers.  A single report provided an estimate of the officer's personal qualities, manner of performance, professional qualifications, and potential as demonstrated during a specific period and in a particular duty assignment.  Normally, no single report would be used as the sole basis of any personnel action.  The information produced by a series of reports submitted by different rating officials in a variety of duty situations became an indication of each officer's progressive development and a basis for measuring his value compared to his contemporaries.

	b.  Paragraph 1-2e stated an officer could appeal any report should he feel that it violated the intent of the regulation.  A reclama was advisable only if he could provide substantial evidence in support of his belief.  A request that merely alleged an unjust rating was not substantial evidence.

	c.  Paragraph 1-3j stated adverse reports must have been referred to the rated officer by the endorser for comment after the endorser completed his portion of the report.  If the rated officer had departed the organization, the report would be forwarded through normal rating channels to the Adjutant General, Department of the Army, who would then refer the report to the rated officer for comment.

24.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  It provides for MEBs, which are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.

	a.  The mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating.  It states 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.

	b.  When a member was being separated by reason other than physical disability, his or her continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until he or she was scheduled for separation or retirement created a presumption that he or she was fit.  That presumption could be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he or she was unable to perform his or her duties for a period of time or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

25.  Title 38, U. S Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, through a court remand, that his military records should be corrected by showing that his honorable discharge was changed to a retirement due to physical disability.  He also requests the following two documents be expunged from his OMPF:

* OER for the period 11 October 1968 through 28 February 1969
* AER, dated 18 December 1972, for the period 24 January to 30 June 1972

2.  A review of the available evidence, to include a careful search of the applicant's hardcopy OMPF failed to disclose a copy of the subject OER for the period 11 October 1968 to 28 February 1969.

	a.  The evidence clearly indicates that this evaluation was available in 2008 and was reviewed by this Board.  No action was taken to change the status of this report.

	b.  The applicant has not provided a copy of the document for the Board to review at this time.

	c.  The Board cannot now make a fair and objective determination concerning the contents of this OER.  However, the subsequent statement by the reviewer for this OER clearly indicates that there may have been an unfair delay in the processing of the OER and that the applicant may not have been provided a reasonable opportunity to rebut the evaluation.

	d.  In that the OER is not currently filed in his OMPF, it therefore cannot be expunged from the record.  Given the lack of available evidence and a concern about whether the applicant received due process, it would be appropriate, should a copy become available, to not file this OER in his OMPF.

3.  The applicant requested that his AER for the period January through June 1972 be expunged from his records.  A search of his OMPF revealed that only the reverse side of the subject AER is currently on file.  Because there is no complete copy of this AER for the Board to review and determine the merits of his request, this issue is moot.  However, because the document filed in his OMPF is not complete it should be removed.

4.  The applicant, in effect, is also requesting that his PEB, dated 10 October 1973, be changed to show that he was found to be unfit for duty and that he was retired due to disability effective 3 December 1973 with all retroactive benefits and monies due to him.

	a.  The mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury.  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.

	b.  The applicant’s subsequent successful military career for an additional           12 years, despite his disabilities, combined with the VA examiner’s observation that his depression did not affect him until 2002 after a successful civilian work history, to include owning his own business; that his marriage was intact; and he had good relations with his children, clearly indicates that he did not meet the criteria for a disability retirement in 1973 or at any time while he was in the Army.

5.  In view of the above, the applicant's request to show he retired for disability should be denied.

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:

	a.  removing the partial copy of the DA Form 1059 (AER) ending on 30 June 1972; and

	b.  by not filing a copy of the DA Form 67-6 (OER) for the period ending on 
28 February 1969, should a copy become available.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was 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 showing his honorable discharge was changed to a retirement due to physical disability.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20110009730



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012021



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1