IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  28 May 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015617 


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) to show in:

* item 4a (Grade, Rate, or Rank) – lieutenant colonel (LTC) instead of major (MAJ)
* item 4b (Pay Grade) – O-5 instead of O-4
* item 12b (Separation Date this Period) – 18 March 1996 instead of 17 April 1991
* item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) – 29 June 1995 instead of 29 June 1989
* item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) –

* Army Achievement Medal
* Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (3rd Award)
* National Defense Service Medal
* Armed Forces Reserve Medal

* item 14 (Military Education) –

* Officer Basic Course
* Medical Laboratory Sciences (Tri-Service) Course, 1985
* Officer Advanced Course, 25 July 1986
* Command and General Staff College, 21 June 1989

* item 18 (Remarks) – add the comment, "Permanently retired due to LOD-incurred disabilities evaluated as 60-percent disabling"
* item 23 (Type of Separation) – permanent disability retirement instead of release from active duty
* item 25 (Separation Authority) – as appropriate for a permanent disability retirement instead of Army Regulation 635-100 (Officer Separations), chapter 3
* item 26 (Separation Code) – as appropriate for a permanent disability retirement instead of separation program designator (SPD) LFF

2.  The applicant states:

* he was awarded a 10-percent disability rating for an injury to the lumbar region of his back, but he was also suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
* the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has awarded him a 40-percent disability rating for his PTSD and Congress made an exception for PTSD in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act
* his discharge predates the Congressional mandate but justice knows no time cut-offs
* his records show his PTSD is service-related and is compensable and his two disabling conditions would total a 50-percent disability rating
* there is a disagreement with the level of disability associated with his back injury
* a physical evaluation board (PEB) diagnosed him with chronic low back pain with left-sided disc disease and he was found unfit to perform the duties of area of concentration (AOC) 68C (Biochemist)
* he was found to be only 10-percent disabled
* a dissenting minority report was filed that found him 20-percent disabled and the VA rated him as 20-percent disabled which is in concurrence with the minority report and makes more logical sense than the 10-percent rating
* he has been rated as 60-percent disabled since his separation
* he suffered a back injury in the line of duty in February 1991 and he was separated from active duty on 17 April 1991
* his medical evaluation board (MEB) was not convened until 19 June 1995 and a PEB was not convened until 8 December 1995
* a 4-year delay of this type can only be seen as ratifying [sic] decisions previously made
* there was no semblance of due process and there may have been some haste involved in inactivating his unit which impacted the mishandling of his inactivation and ultimate separation
* for 4 years the Army ignored both clear evidence of his medical condition and impairment and its duty to act on that evidence prior to his separation
* prior to providing him with proper diagnosis and treatment, including both an MEB and PEB, the Army had a responsibility to keep him on active duty
* his discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 18 March 1996 should have been a discharge from active duty
* he would have been considered by a promotion selection board had he been serving on active duty, even as a Reservist
* his complete and unredacted military record, including all decorations and education, which were missing from the original DD Form 214, together with his evaluation reports and the rest of his file indicate that he was likely to be selected for promotion to LTC
* all of the foregoing information supports a claim for back pay for increase in rank, plus retirement pay, plus interest, as allowed per the Code of Federal Regulations

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 29 July 1998
* DD Form 214
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)
* DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings), dated 19 June 1995
* PEB Minority Report, dated 8 December 1995
* letter from therapist, dated 6 February 2007
* Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 24 February 1995

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.  A copy of Headquarters, 344th General Hospital, Permanent Orders 2-1, dated 1 February 1979, is erroneously filed in the applicant's personnel records.  These orders bear the same name as the applicant but list a different social security number.  Further, these orders were issued prior to the applicant's military appointment.

3.  The applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the USAR on 28 June 1982.

4.  Records show the applicant completed the following courses:

* Medical Laboratory Sciences (Tri-Service), 1 week, 24 through 28 March 1985
* Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Officer Advanced Course, Phase 4, 2 weeks, 23 June through 5 July 1985
* AMEDD Basic Officer Course, 1986
* AMEDD Officer Advanced Course, Phase 3, 2 weeks, 14 through 25 July 1986
* Command and General Staff Officer College, 36 months, 1 October 1986 through 7 June 1989

5.  A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 26 October 1986, awarded the applicant the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal effective 27 June 1986.

6.  The applicant was promoted to major effective 27 June 1989.

7.  On 25 January 1991, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

8.  The applicant's DA Form 67-8 (U.S. Army Officer Evaluation Report) for the period 25 January 1991 through 12 April 1991 shows:

* he passed his Army Physical Fitness Test in April 1990
* back problems that existed prior to his mobilization flared up and caused a long period of absence with hospitalization and quarters bed rest
* his back problems were a factor in his unit's inability to achieve its full potential

9.  His DA Form 2B (Personnel Qualification Record – Commissioned Officer), dated 9 March 1991, shows award of the Armed Forces Reserve Medal and Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal.

10.  On 17 April 1991, he was honorably released from active duty.  His DD Form 214 shows in:

* item 4a – major
* item 4b – O-4
* item 12 – 91  04  17
* item 12h – 89  06  29
* item 13 –

* Army Service Ribbon
* National Defense Service Medal
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar (.45 caliber)
* Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal

* item 14 – blank
* item 23 – Release from Active Duty
* item 25 – Army Regulation 635-100, chapter 3
* item 26 – LFF
* item 28 – Directed by the Secretary of the Army

11.  On 30 September 1991, the applicant was awarded the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (2nd Award) for the period June 1986 to June 1990.

12.  A DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), dated 25 August 1992, shows the applicant was evaluated for low back on 28 February 1991 that questioned whether it existed prior to service (EPTS).  This form also shows the comments:

* per radiology report, dated 31 January 1991, history of bulging disc at left L4-L5 in 1984
* history of left L5-S1 radiculopathy in May 1990
* service member allegedly sustained a twisting injury to his left lower back on or about 1000 hours on 28 February 1991 at Fort Knox, KY

13.  On 5 May 1992, a DD Form 215 was issued changing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show, in:

* item 25 – Army Regulation 635-100, chapter 3, section XI
* item 26 – LBX
* item 28 – expiration term of service

14.  A medical note, dated 15 October 1992, shows the applicant was seen by a civilian physician for suprapubic discomfort.  He was advised his problem was most likely due to his back and not to any urinary problem.  He was further advised to see an orthopedist if the problem persisted.

15.  A DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation – Line of Duty and Misconduct Status), dated 1 October 1993, shows the applicant's claim of a twisting injury to lower back pain on 28 February 1991 was investigated.  Item 9g (Remarks) of this form shows the following remarks:

Based on the medical data provided by the U.S. Army MEDDAC [Medical Department Activity] in Fort Knox, Kentuckey [sic] and other professional sources, including a statement from [applicant], this investigator being a Registered Professional Nurse, finds the claim of [applicant] to be a chronic condition, which existed prior to service and the condition was severely exacerbated when [applicant] performed his military duties while on active duty at Fort Knox, Kentucky.  In conclusion, IN LINE OF DUTY, NOT DUE TO OWN MISCONDUCT.  Lateness due to securing medical documentation and contact with officer as both were not geographically available to investigating officer.

16.  The formal line-of-duty investigation was reviewed and determined to be legally sufficient.

17.  Two Standard Forms 513 (Consultation Sheet), dated 10 June 1994 and 15 February 1995, show the applicant was referred to an MEB for a fitness-for-duty evaluation with a history of an unwitnessed twisting injury to his lower back while serving on active duty.  His diagnosis at the time was chronic lower back pain with vasovagal near scope two degrees to lower back pain.  The MEB was directed to initiate disability processing if appropriate.

18.  On 19 June 1995, an MEB found the applicant's chronic left lumbar disc disease with a small herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) at L5-S1 which occurred in 1991 did not EPTS and was not permanently aggravated by service.  The MEB referred the applicant to a PEB.

19.  The applicant's Standard Form 502 (Narrative Summary), dated 14 August 1995, shows:

* he was able to perform his duties at the time he was initially examined
* the physical demands, i.e., long hours, exacerbated his condition and he required hospitalization in February 1991 and again in March 1991
* in August 1991, the applicant's condition was noted as markedly worse than it was prior to his call-up and his physician noted increasingly severe paresthesias radiating down the legs associated with guarding and spasm in the lumbar spine
* the applicant had been examined on several occasions by more than one orthopedist, a neurologist, and a neurosurgeon
* he was found unfit under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraphs 3-39c, 3-41c(1), and 3-41c(2)
* he would not likely improve and surgery was not indicated at the time

20.  On 15 August 1995, the findings and recommendations of the MEB were approved.

21.  On 24 August 1995, the applicant, while serving in the grade of major, concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB and indicated he did not desire to remain on active duty because he was physically unable to do so.

22.  On 15 September 1995, a PEB determined the applicant's chronic low back pain with left-sided disc disease with HNP:

* was unfitting and rated as 10-percent disabling
* EPTS and was service aggravated 

23.  The PEB also concluded that his medical condition prevented him from satisfactory duty performance.  The PEB recommended separation with severance pay.

24.  On 28 September 1995, the applicant non-concurred with the findings of the PEB and demanded a formal hearing.

25.  On 8 December 1995, a formal PEB determined:

* the applicant's chronic low back pain with left-sided disc disease with HNP was rated as 10-percent disabling, unfitting, EPTS, and service aggravated
* his medical condition prevented him from satisfactory duty performance in his grade and AOC

26.  The formal PEB recommended separation with severance pay with a disability rating of 10-percent.

27.  On 8 December 1995, a minority report to the applicant's formal PEB was submitted.  The report shows a member of the formal PEB believed the applicant's 10-percent disability rating should have been rated as 20-percent disabling.

28.  On 5 January 1996, the applicant indicated he did not concur with the findings and recommendations of the formal PEB.  He elected not to submit a statement of rebuttal and he acknowledged by not submitting a statement that his case would be forwarded for final disposition action without review of his case by the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency.

29.  On 8 February 1996, the findings and recommendations of the PEB were approved.

30.  U.S. Army Total Army Personnel Command, Orders D46-1, dated 4 March 1996, discharged the applicant from the USAR effective 18 March 1996 with a
10-percent disability rating and authorized severance pay in the rank of MAJ based on 2 years, 1 month, and 21 days of service.

31.  His records are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD while in service or that he was found unfit due to PTSD.

32.  Army Regulation 40-501, then in effect, provided information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures.  Chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement) provided the standards for medical fitness for retention and separation, including retirement.  Soldiers with medical conditions listed in this chapter were referred for disability processing.

33.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibility, and procedures that apply in determining whether a member is unfit because of physical disability to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.

	a.  The mere presence of impairment does not, in itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.

	b.  The medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility evaluates those referred to him and, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refers the member to an MEB.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards are referred to a PEB for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically-disqualifying condition.

	c.  Paragraph 3-2b(1) states that when a member is being separated by reasons other than physical disability, his or her continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until he or she is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that he or she is fit.  This presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is 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, renders the member unfit.

	d.  Paragraph 3-3e states Soldiers who have previously been found unfit for duty by a PEB but were continued on active duty (COAD) will be referred to a PEB prior to retirement or separation processing.

	e.  Paragraph 4-19d(1) states the first and most important determination made by the PEB is whether the Soldier was physically fit or unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.

	f.  Paragraph 4-19i states that after establishing the fact that a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability and that the Soldier is entitled to benefits, the PEB decides the percentage rating for each unfitting compensable disability.  Percentage ratings reflect the severity of the Soldier's medical condition at the time of rating.  The VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities is used in deriving percentage ratings.

	g.  Paragraph 4-22g states that if a Soldier has requested COAD, the Army Physical Disability Appeal Board will forward the case to the appropriate office for COAD review.

	h.  Paragraph 6-2 states a Soldier who is physically unqualified for further military service has no inherent or vested right to continuation.

	i.  Paragraph 6-3 states Reserve Component Soldiers determined unfit while mobilized may only request continuation in their pre-mobilization status or in the Individual Ready Reserve.  They are ineligible for COAD, or otherwise being accessed onto the Active Duty List as a COAD.  The Soldier may return to a mobilized status subject to mobilization policy.

	j.  Paragraph 6-7 states that for a Soldier to be considered for COAD or continuation on active Reserve status, a Soldier must be:

* basically stable or have a disability that is of slow progression according to accepted medical principles – it must not be deleterious to the Soldier's health or prejudicial to the best interest of the Soldier or the Army
* physically capable of performing useful duty in an specialty for which currently qualified or potentially trainable (to include reclassification)

	k.  Paragraph 6-14 states if the managing physician believes it is necessary, or the Soldier's commander requests it, the Soldier will be referred to an MEB or PEB.

34.  Army Regulation 635-40 states there is no legal requirement in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity to rate a physical condition which is not in itself considered disqualifying for military service when a Soldier is found unfit because of another condition that is disqualifying.  Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability.

35.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, stated to list in-service training courses, title, number of weeks, and year successfully completed during the period of service covered on the DD Form 214.

36.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating because of a disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

37.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent.

38.  Title 31, U.S. Code, states that unless otherwise allowed by statute or contract, interest associated with claim disputes is generally not recoverable from the U.S. Government.

39.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

40.  Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers), in effect at the time, prescribed policy and procedures used in the selection and promotion of commissioned officers of the ARNG and commissioned and warrant officers of the USAR.  It stated consideration for a non-unit officer (and unit officer if not earlier promoted) for promotion to the next higher grade is mandatory upon his meeting the time in grade and total years of service requirements, whichever occurs later.

	a.  Promotions to fill authorized troop program unit vacancies would be filled through promotion of the best-qualified and geographically-available officers, including warrant officers.

	b.  An officer is qualified for promotion if in an active status, participating satisfactorily, and there are no grounds for removal from the service.  Examples include demonstrated substandard performance, unfitness, unsuitability, or for security reasons.  USAR Control Group officers would have met the requirements by virtue of their assignment.

	c.  Table 2-1 (Time in Grade Requirements for Commissioned Officers, Other Than Commissioned Warrant Officers) outlined the service requirements for promotion and indicated that for promotion to LTC an individual had to have had 4 years in the lower grade for a unit board, 7 years for a mandatory board, and 17 years of commissioned service.

41.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  It stated the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provided a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.

42.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes), in effect at the time, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.

	a.  SPD code LFF was the appropriate code to assign Regular Army enlisted Soldiers who were honorably discharged or released from active duty under the provisions of paragraph 5-3 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), based on a narrative reason for separation of Secretarial authority.

	b.  SPD code LBK was the appropriate code to assign to Army officers for expiration term of service under the provisions of chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-100.  This separation code was used for an involuntary release or transfer from active duty.

43.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards.

	a.  The Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal is authorized for award to Army personnel, including Active Guard Reserve officers, in the rank of colonel and below for exemplary behavior, efficiency, and fidelity while serving as a member of an Army National Guard or USAR troop program unit or as an individual mobilization augmentee.  Individuals must have completed 4 years of qualifying service on or after 3 March 1972 and before 28 March 1995.  Beginning on 28 March 1995, the period of qualifying service for award of the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal was reduced from 4 to 3 years.  This change is not retroactive.

	b.  The Armed Forces Reserve Medal is awarded for honorable and satisfactory service as a member of one or more of the Reserve Components for a period of 10 years.  The member must have been called or volunteered and served on active duty in support of specific U.S. military operations or contingencies designated by the Secretary of Defense, as defined in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 101(A)(13).

		(1)  The "M" Device is authorized for wear on the Armed Forces Reserve Medal by members of the Reserve Components who are called or who volunteer and serve on active duty in support of specific U.S. military operations or contingencies designated by the Secretary of Defense as defined in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 101(a)(13).

		(2)  The 10-Year Device (hourglass with Roman numeral "X") is authorized for wear on the Armed Forces Reserve Medal to denote each 10-year period of Reserve Component service.  The first 10-year period is denoted by a bronze hourglass, the second 10-year period by a silver hourglass, and the third by a gold hourglass.  Forty years of Reserve Component service is recognized by a gold hourglass followed by a bronze hourglass.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was properly processed through the Physical Disability System and that he received a disability rating of 10 percent for a back condition.

2.  The applicant contends he should have been medically retired from the Army.  However, he was not assigned a disability rating of at least 30 percent when he was released from active duty or discharged from the USAR.  Therefore, there is no basis for a medical retirement.

3.  Although he states the VA awarded him a 40-percent disability rating for PTSD, his records are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he was found unfit for military service due to PTSD.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.

4.  The VA has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service and awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability.  Therefore, it is not unusual for the Army and the VA, operating under different policies, to arrive at different disability rating decisions.

5.  The applicant completed a qualifying period of service for the second award of the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal at the time he was released from active duty and his DD Form 214 was issued.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show award of the Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (2nd Award).

6.  The applicant served a qualifying period for award of the Armed Forces Reserve Medal with bronze 10-Year Device and "M" Device.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show this award.

7.  His DD Form 214 shows award of the National Defense Service Medal.  Therefore, there is no basis for the requested relief.

8.  His records are void of and he failed to provide evidence showing he was awarded the Army Achievement Medal.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief.

9.  Although the applicant completed several military education courses, his records are void of and he failed to provide evidence he completed any training courses during the period covered on his DD Form 214.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the requested relief.

10.  Based on his date of rank to MAJ of 27 June 1989, the earliest he would have been entitled to mandatory promotion consideration to LTC would have been in 1999.  Since he was found unfit for a back condition and discharged, he never reached consideration eligibility for promotion to LTC.  Having been never eligible, considered, or selected for promotion to LTC, he is not entitled to the requested promotion relief.

11.  Because the applicant was released from active duty in the rank of MAJ, his DD Form 214 correctly listed this rank, grade, and effective date of rank.  

12.  He was not found 60-percent disabled or permanently retired.  His DD Form 214 accurately shows he was honorably released from active duty after completing the period of service for which he was order to active duty. 

13.  His SPD code LBK was appropriately assigned in accordance with the governing regulation.  

14.  There is no evidence that he is entitled to retirement pay plus interest.

15.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to grant the requested relief beyond that which is recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ___X_____  ____X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is 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 the following awards to his DD Form 214:

* Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (2nd Award)
* Armed Forces Reserve Medal with bronze 10-Year Device and "M" Device

2.  The Board further determined 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 correction his DD Form 214 to show:

* his rank/grade as LTC/O-5
* his date of separation as 18 March 1996
* his effective date of pay grade as 29 June 1995
* award of the Army Achievement Medal and Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (3rd Award)
* completion of military education prior to the period covered by the DD Form 214
* adding the comment, "Permanently retired due to LOD-incurred disabilities evaluated at 60-percent"
* he was retired by reason of permanent disability with the applicable separation authority and SPD code
* he is entitled to retirement pay plus interest



      _____________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)                                         AR20140015617



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015617



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1