IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140017672 


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) for the period ending on 13 May 1988 to show, in effect:

	a.  he was medically retired under honorable conditions;

	b.  his rank/pay grade as "at least" master sergeant (MSG)/E-8;

	c.  the Soldier's Medal or the Silver Star, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-1), and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14); and

   d.  he completed at least 20 years of service.

2.  Additionally, he wants to know what happened to the Soldier he saved, FK, and his former company commander CPT JSO after he became a four star general.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  He enlisted in the Army and volunteered to go to Vietnam right after he graduated from high school.  He was passionate about serving in Vietnam; however, after he completed training, his orders were changed and he was sent to Korea.  He was very upset about this, because all of his friends were being sent to Vietnam.  He did not sign up to serve in Korea, he signed up to serve in Vietnam.  He had also been given a nickname when he was in training that he was never able to shake, "Captain (CPT) Jack."  He earned this nickname during training, when his drill sergeant (SGT) singled him out to use as a tool to teach the platoon a lesson by showing them all he was tough.  The drill SGT kicked the applicant in the back and he fell to the ground but he did not fight back.  After the incident his platoon started referring to him as "CPT Jack."

	b.  When he got to Korea, his commander was CPT JSO.  His commander hated him and he especially hated anyone calling the applicant "CPT Jack."  Nevertheless, he was a good Soldier and he worked in the position of platoon sergeant at the age of 19.  

	c.  One day he and another Soldier, FK, were told to go to the motor pool and hook the 10-ton truck up to the water buffalo (a water trailer that carried 400 gallons of water).  He and FK had no idea what they were doing and there was no one else in the area.  The applicant began backing up the trailer and FK was guiding him back.  They thought they had the trailer connected, but it became disconnected and when he backed the truck up he heard FK scream.  He ran to the back of the truck and saw the trailer had fallen on FK and he was caught underneath it.  FK cried and the applicant called out for help, but there was no one to help.  He positioned himself in front of the tow handle, reached down and grabbed it with both hands.  The applicant lifted the trailer until he had it waist high and then told FK to crawl out.  After FK crawled out the applicant let the trailer hit the ground.  He then picked FK up, put him in a Jeep and took him to the orderly room.  An ambulance came and took him to the hospital and he was later medically evacuated to the United States.  He was never told whether FK lived or died and his commander never spoke to him about the incident.  However, his section chief told him he would be getting the Soldier's Medal or Silver Star for his actions.  He never received any kind of medal.  Eventually he was returned to the United States and after his return, his unit in Korea was assigned to Vietnam.

	d.  Much later and after a break in service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army and was stationed in Germany.  He received an honorary promotion to sergeant major (SGM)/E-9 in Battery C, a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) unit in Bamberg, Germany in 1986.  When Staff Sergeant (SSG) KD and First Lieutenant (1LT) H promoted him to the honorary position of SGM of Battery C, it was done because of something they saw in him, and only they knew what it was.  He was only a SGT/E-5 at the time and they promoted him to SGM/E-9.  It was ironic, because they had no idea that with the missing promotion points from his record, he actually qualified for promotion to E-9 at that time.

	e.  However, later that year he was reduced from the rank of SGT/E-5 to specialist four (SP4)/E-4 because he smoked marijuana for his back pain.  He was on the staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 promotion list at the time of his reduction.

	f.  The bottom line is that:

		(1)  He did not get what he signed up for (Vietnam).

		(2)  He is missing three awards from his military record (the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-1); the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14); and the Soldier's Medal).

		(3)  All of his promotions were incorrect.  The fact that the above awards were missing means he had earned numerous promotion points that were not credited to him. These awards would have enhanced his rank and promotions over the years if they had been in his records. 

		(4)  His discharge rank is incorrect, he should have been discharged in the rank of MSG/E-8.

		(5)  His time in service computation is incorrect.  He should have received credit for:

			(a)  4.4 years (rounded to 5 years) during his first/second tours of duty 

			(b)  9.5 years (rounded to 10 years) during his third tour of duty 

			(c)  These two periods equal 13.9 years (rounded to 14 years)

			(d)  He also had 6 years of Reserve time 6.0 years (6 years years)

			(e)  These periods of service total 19.9 years (rounded to 20 years)

			(f)  He also has an 11 year break in service, but he is unsure whether or not this service counts towards retirement.

		(6)  He has worn back braces for over 40 years because of back pain and surgeries.  He tried to get a medical discharge with a 10 percent (%) disability rating, but he was denied because he had to use marijuana for back pain, even though he maxed the physical fitness (PT) test three times.


4.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statements, dated 19 June 2011, 11 July 2014, and 
25 August 2014
* self-authored statement titled, "An Honorary Promotion," undated
* self-authored statement titled, "My Birthday, April 10, 1994"
* DD Form 214 for the period ending on 13 May 1988
* DA Form 268 (Report for Suspension of Favorable Personnel Action (FLAG)), dated 24 March 1986
* 2 letters from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Awards and Decorations Branch, dated 15 September 2011 and 7 November 2011
* certificate showing he was awarded the Centurion Award
* a self-authored poem titled, "The Haunting of a Buffalo Soldier," dated 
30 June 2014
* a list titled, "The 10 Grand Torino Coincidences," dated 19 June 2011
* a document titled, "Coincidences Continued"
* self-authored television commercial script titled, "THE DC SEMBLY LINE BLUES"

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

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

2.  The applicant's record contains a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States) that shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 December 1962.  This DD Form 214 further shows:

* he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 142.10 (Heavy and Very Heavy Field Artillery Crewman) 
* he was assigned to Battery D, 5th Battalion, 82nd Artillery Regiment, Camp Howze, Republic of Korea
* he was awarded or authorized the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-1)
* he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment on 11 May 1964
* he had attained the rank/pay grade of PFC/E-3
* he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 28 days of net active service during this period of service
* this DD Form 214 lists no previous or "other" service

3.  He reenlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 12 May 1964.  During his second enlistment he held MOS 31G (Tactical Communications Chief) and attained the rank/grade of SGT/E-5.  

4.  He was honorably released from active duty and transferred to U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) (Inactive Reserve) on 11 May 1967.  His DD Form 214 shows:

* his terminal date of reserve obligation was listed as 13 December 1968
* he was awarded or authorized the National Defense Service Medal
* at the time of his discharge, he was assigned to Battery C, 1st Battalion, 19th Artillery Regiment, 5th U.S. Army, Fort Carson, Colorado
* he completed 3 years of net active service during this period of service
* this DD Form 214 also shows he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 
28 days of "other" or previous service

5.  His record does not contain any evidence that shows he served with a drilling USAR unit between 12 May 1967 and 24 April 1979 or that he earned any retirement points during this period.  

6.  He reentered the RA on 25 April 1979, in the rank/pay grade of private (PV2)/E-2 and held MOS 31C (Signal Channel Radio Operator) and MOS 54B (Chemical Operations Specialist).  He served through several reenlistments and/or extensions.  The highest rank/pay grade he held during this period of service was SGT/E-5.

7.  On 10 April 1986, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for the wrongful use of marijuana on or before 10 February 1986.  His punishment included a reduction in rank/grade from SGT/E-5 to SP4/E-4, however, this punishment appears to have been suspended.



8.  His record contains a DA Form 4466 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP Client Progress Report (CPR)), dated 22 July 1986.  This report was created because the applicant satisfactorily completed ADAPCP and was being retained on active duty.

9.  His record contains a personal statement, dated 12 March 1987, wherein he stated, in effect, he was pleading not guilty to the use of marijuana because he was taking it for his back pain as a pain reliever and not for the purpose of social entertainment as in the case of a drug abuser.  He also went on to describe how he permanently injured his back while rescuing a fellow Soldier pinned under a water buffalo and developed two hernias requiring surgery.  He further stated that he has had to wear a back brace since the incident and yet he still managed to max two of his last physical fitness tests despite this injury and the fact that he was over 40 years of age.  

10.  On 29 April 1987, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for the wrongful use of marijuana sometime between 5 December 1986 and 5 January 1987, which was detected by biological testing of a urine sample he submitted to military authorities on 5 January 1987.  His punishment included a reduction from SGT/E-5 to SP4/E-4.

11.  His record contains a medical evaluation board (MEB) Narrative Summary (NARSUM), dated 12 August 1987, which states, in effect, he injured his back lifting the water buffalo and he was diagnosed with mechanical low back pain that had resisted treatment, rest, and profiles, and the applicant felt unable to perform his duties.  The NARSUM proposed medical separation from the Army.  An addendum to this MEB NARSUM stated the applicant's medical condition did not contribute to or cause his use of marijuana nor had his medical condition contributed to his misconduct.  

12.  His record contains a DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings), dated 24 August 1987, which shows the MEB considered his condition of low back pain, radiating down to both legs, more on the left, indicated this condition originated in 1964, and had been permanently aggravated by service.  Additionally, the MEB recommended he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The applicant agreed with the MEB's recommendations and findings.  

13.  The applicant's commander prepared a statement, dated 5 October 1987, informing the patient administration clinic the applicant was being separated under the provisions of Chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).


14.  On 1 December 1987, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and willfully disobeying the orders of a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  His punishment included a reduction to private first class (PFC)/E-3, which was suspended for 120 days.  

15.  His record contains a second set of MEB Proceedings, showing the MEB considered his condition of low back pain, radiating down to both legs, more on the left.  The MEB recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant disagreed with the MEB's recommendation and findings on 22 March 1988.  

16.  On 29 March 1988, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for wrongfully using marijuana on or about 25 February 1988.  His punishment included a reduction to private (PV2)/E-2.  

17.  On 30 March 1988, he was notified by his immediate commander of the intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, because he had received three Article 15's for marijuana use.  His commander advised him of the characterization of service he could receive and advised him of his rights.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of notification the same day.

18.  Accordingly, on 30 March 1988, his commander formally recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a general discharge.

19.  His record contains a Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 April 1988, which shows he was referred for evaluation due to misconduct.  The evaluation indicated his behavior was normal, he was fully alert and oriented, his mood or affect was unremarkable, his thinking process was clear and his thought content normal, and his memory was good.  This evaluation also stated he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, he was mentally responsible, and he met the retention requirements of chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).

20.  On 5 April 1988, the applicant acknowledged he had been advised by his counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and its effects; of the rights available to him; and of the effect of any action taken by him to waive his rights.  He waived his right to counsel, consideration of his case by and a personal appearance before an administrative separation board and indicated he would submit a statement in his own behalf.  However, there is no indication that he actually submitted a statement in his own behalf.
21.  On 14 April 1988, the separation authority directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 625-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct-commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs).  The separation authority further directed he receive a General Discharge Certificate. 

22.  On 13 May 1988, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 
9 years and 19 days of net active service during the period covered by this 
DD Form 214, with 4 years, 4 months, and 28 days of total prior active service, and 1 year, 7 months, and 13 days of total prior inactive service.  Additionally, he was awarded or authorized the:

* Army Commendation Medal
* Army Achievement Medal
* Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award)
* National Defense Service Medal 
* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 2
* Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16)
* Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver (W) Bar
 
23.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows he was not favorably considered for the Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award). This form does not show he was awarded or authorized the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14).

24.  His record does not contain orders or recommendations for award of the Silver Star or Soldier's Medal.  Additionally, there is no record indicating he was awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14).

25.  His record does not contain orders promoting him to the rank/pay grade of SSG/E-6, sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7, MSG/E-8, or SGM/E-9.

26.  His record contains numerous documents stamped "promotion documents"; however, there is no record of any document showing how many promotion points he had or what additional documents may have been used to determine promotion points.  

27.  There is no indication that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to request an upgrade of his discharge within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations.

28.  He applied to the ABCMR requesting a physical disability retirement or separation; however, the Board denied his request on 6 October 1993, as promulgated in ABCMR Docket Number AC92-7779.

29.  The applicant provided:

   a.  A letter from the HRC Awards and Decoration Branch, dated 97 November 2011, wherein his request for award of the Silver Star and Soldier's Medal were denied.

   b.  A self-authored poem titled "The Haunting of a Buffalo Soldier."  This poem is about the applicant's rescue of the Soldier pinned by the water buffalo trailer, his personal sadness in not getting to say goodbye to the Soldier, and his curiosity about what happened to the Soldier after he left Korea.  

   c.  A self-authored statement titled, "My Birthday, April 10, 1994" wherein he describes how while attempting to sell life insurance on his birthday, he ended up rescuing a man from a house fire.  

   d.  A list titled "The 10 Grand Torino Coincidences (40 Years After the Accident)," wherein he compares the Clint Eastwood movie "Gran Torino" to his own life.  

   e.  A self-authored television commercial script titled, "THE DC SEMBLY LINE BLUES."  He compares this commercial, and the fact that he worked on an assembly line for the Dodge Caravan to Clint Eastwood's character in "Gran Torino."  He also indicated that the commercial he wrote, a talking commercial, not used by Dodge, illustrates a parallel between himself, his commercial and Clint Eastwood.  He stated Clint Eastwood did a talking commercial for the auto industry at some point after his talking commercials were rejected by Dodge.  

30.  Army Regulation 635-200 establishes policy and sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and titled the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would have been clearly inappropriate.

   b.  Chapter 14 prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  
   
      (1)  Commission of a serious military or civil offense is a basis for separation if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge would be authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial.  Abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct; separation action normally will be based upon commission of a serious offense. 
   
      (2)  Relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense.  Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions of incidents of other misconduct and be processed for separation as appropriate.  Soldiers against whom charges will not be referred to a court-martial authorized to impose a punitive discharge or against whom separation action will not be initiated under the provisions of chapter 9 or section II of this chapter will be processed for separation under this section as applicable. 
      
      (3)  Other personnel (first-time offenders, grades E1-E4) may be processed for separation as appropriate.  "Processed for separation" means that separation action will be initiated and processed through the chain of command to the separation authority for appropriate action.  The immediate and intermediate commanders will recommend separation or retention, as well as the appropriate characterization of service.  The separation reason in all separations authorized by this paragraph will be "misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs."  First-time drug offenders in grades E5 - E9 will be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense.  Second-time drug offenders in grades E1 - E9 must be processed for separation after a second offense.

   c.  Paragraph 14-17 provides that on receiving a recommendation for separation for misconduct, the separation, authority may direct that the case be processed through medical channels, if appropriate.  Such disposition is required if the Soldier has an incapacitating physical or mental illness that was the direct or substantial contributing cause-of the conduct and action under the UCMJ is not initiated.  

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

   a.  The Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy.  The required gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

   b.  The Soldier's Medal is awarded for distinguished heroism not involving actual conflict with the enemy.  The same degree of heroism is required as for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross.  The performance must have involved personal hazard or danger and the voluntary risk of life under conditions not involving conflict with an armed enemy. Award of the Soldier's Medal will not be made solely on the basis of having saved a life.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.  

32.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130 provides the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion.  Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration.  Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award.

33.  The request, with a DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), must be submitted through a Member of Congress to:  Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC-PDP-A), 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Fort Knox, Kentucky  40122.  The unit must be clearly identified, along with the period of assignment and the recommended award.  A narrative of the actions or period for which recognition is being requested must accompany the DA Form 638.  Requests should be supported by sworn affidavits, eyewitness statements, certificates, and related documents.  Supporting evidence is best provided by commanders, leaders, and fellow Soldiers who had personal knowledge of the facts relative to the request.  The burden and costs for researching and assembling supporting documentation rest with the applicant.

34.  Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth procedures for processing requests for correction of military records.  Paragraph 2-15b governs requests for reconsideration.  This provision of the regulation allows an applicant to request reconsideration of an earlier ABCMR decision if the request is received within one year of the ABCMR's original decision and it has not previously been reconsidered.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requested an upgrade of his discharge for the period ending on 13 May 1988 to show he was medically retired under honorable conditions.  

	a.  His request for a medical/physical disability retirement or separation was previously considered and denied by the ABCMR Docket Number ABCMR Docket Number AC92-7779, dated 6 October 1993.  This case was decided 22 years ago and is well outside the timeframe permitted for reconsideration.  

	b.  His records went before two MEBs and while the first MEB recommended a PEB, his MEB records also indicated his drug use was not caused by his medical condition.  Additionally, after this MEB recommended his records go before a PEB, his command notified the medical community he was pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct due to drug abuse.  The second MEB recommended that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c.

	c.  Since his misconduct was not caused by his medical condition, the separation authority was authorized to direct his separation in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c.

	d.  He was not a first time offender for drug abuse and he received NJP on more than one occasion for this offense.  He also received NJP for not being at his appointed place of duty during an alert and disobeying the orders of an NCO. Based on his record of misconduct, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  

	e.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant a medical retirement or an upgrade of his character of service to honorable.

2.  His record does not contain orders awarding him the Silver Star or the Soldier's Medal.  It appears that he does not meet the criteria for either of these awards.  

   a.  First, there is no evidence to show he served in a combat area or that he ever engaged with or was engaged by the enemy; therefore, he does not meet the criteria for the Silver Star.  

   b.  Second, there is no evidence and he has not provided evidence to show his life was endangered when he helped another Soldier by lifting the trailer he was pinned under; as such, he does not qualify for award of the Soldier's Medal. 

   c.  Furthermore, both of the above awards require formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders.  Since his record does not contain orders for these awards, nor does he met the regulatory criteria prescribed for either award, there is insufficient evidence to justify awarding these awards or adding them to his DD Form 214.  
   
   d.  Since eligibility for these awards has not been established, they cannot be used for promotion points.

3.  His DD Form 214 for the period ending on 11 May 1964 shows he was awarded or authorized the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-1).  There is no evidence that he was ever awarded the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-14).  Furthermore, there is no record of how many promotion points the applicant had accrued, what he accrued them for, or how many points he required for promotion in his MOS. 
As such, it is impossible to tell whether he was credited with the correct amount of promotion points and what weapons qualifications were counted.  

4.  His record does not contain and he has not provided any promotion orders to show he was ever promoted beyond the rank/grade of SGT/E-5.  Additionally, his argument that he was not promoted because he was denied credit for the promotion points he earned lacks merit.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to justify correcting his rank or promoting him to the rank/grade of MSG/E-8.

5.  The applicant's request indicated that he believes he is qualified for at least 
20 years of service towards retirement.  However, his records indicate otherwise. 

   a.  His first DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 4 months, and 28 days of net active service.  His second DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years of net active service.  As such, he completed a total of 4 years, 4 months, and 
28 days of net active service.  

	b.  He was released from active duty at the end of his second period of active duty service, on 11 May 1967 and transferred to the inactive Reserve to complete his Reserve obligation, which ended on 13 December 1968 (1 year, 
7 months, and 2 days) after his release from active duty.  As such, this could only be counted as inactive service.  (However, it should be noted that his DD Form 214 for the period ending on 13 May 1988 listed his inactive service as 1 year, 7 months, and 13 days.)
	
   c.  He had a break in service between 12 May 1967 and 24 April 1979. 

	d.  His third period of active service was from 25 April 1979 to 13 May 1988.  During this period he completed 9 years and 19 days of net active service.  

	e.  His DD Form for the period ending on 13 May 1988 shows he completed a total of 13 years, 5 months, and 17 days of net active service and 1 year, 
7 months, and 13 days of inactive service.  As such, he had less than 20 years of creditable service for retirement.

6.  The ABCMR is not an investigative agency, nor is it the custodian of military records.  Furthermore, the ABCMR is not authorized to provide information or discuss other individuals with applicants.

7.  Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to grant the applicant's requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ____x___  ___x ____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140017672



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017672



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1