RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        31 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050011479


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Terry L. Placek               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John G. Heck                  |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that the effective date of his discharge be
changed to 1 November 2004.

2.  The applicant states discharging an officer with his rank and years of
service required Secretary of the Army approval, which was never obtained.
Therefore, the earliest date on which his discharge could conceivably be
valid would be       1 November 2004, the date the Army Discharge Review
Board (ADRB) upgraded his discharge to honorable.

3.  The applicant provides his 1 November 2004 discharge orders and an
Honorable Discharge Certificate dated 1 November 2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior service in the U. S. Navy and U. S. Naval
Reserve, the applicant was appointed a commissioned officer in the U. S.
Army Reserve (USAR) on 28 February 1991.  He was promoted to lieutenant
colonel in the Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAGC) on 27 June 1999.

2.  By memorandum dated 30 October 2002, the U. S. Army Reserve Personnel
Command (AR-PERSCOM, formerly known as the U. S. Army Personnel Center
(ARPERCEN) and currently known as the U. S. Army Human Resources Command –
St. Louis (USARHC – STL)) appointed an investigating officer to determine
facts related to the applicant's service personnel records.

3.  The Report of Informal Investigation under Army Regulation 15-6
substantiated allegations that the applicant:

      a.  Improperly failed to request a waiver in connection with his
application for appointment in the USAR;

      b.  Falsely stated his total service as 10 years and falsely stated
his commissioned U. S. Navy active service as covering the period March
1973 through October 1982 in a request for appointment as a USAR Civil
Affairs officer;

      c.  Falsely reported his U. S. Naval Reserve active duty as from
         23 October 1972 through 30 November 1982 in his 1990 application
for appointment in the USAR JAGC;

      d.  Knowingly submitted a false and incomplete DA Form 61
(Application for Appointment) in the USAR JAGC;

      e.  Wore an unauthorized Armed Forces Reserve Medal ribbon in two
official photographs submitted to two Colonel Command Assignment Selection
Boards and in connection with applications for nine Staff Judge Advocate
and Command Judge Advocate positions;

      f.  Improperly created an official photograph, dated 9 February 2000,
by computer or photographic manipulation of an official photograph dated 30
June 1998, thus creating a false and misleading depiction of himself;

      g.  Submitted the falsified official photograph, dated 9 February
2000, for official purposes on ten occasions;

      h.  Misrepresented his military awards on numerous occasions in
resumes and biographies he submitted for consideration by the Army;

      i.  Submitted a false statement of weight in a DA Form 1058-R
(Request for Orders) dated 10 August 2001;

      j.  Misrepresented his Baccalaureate degree from Middlebury College
as with honors in connection with five applications for positions in the
USAR;

      k.  Misrepresented his Master of Fine Arts degree from the University
of California, Los Angeles as with honors in connection with two
applications for positions in the USAR;

      l.  Improperly failed to seek correction of his retirement points
erroneously credited in connection with his Navy service; and

      m.  Improperly failed to disclose receipt of disability compensation
from the Department of Veterans Affairs during several periods of active
duty.

4.  By memorandum dated 27 June 2003, the applicant was notified he was
being considered for involuntary separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 135-175, paragraphs 2-12d, 2-12f, and 2-12o.  He requested a
hearing before a board of officers.  On 8 February 2004, a board of
officers recommended the applicant be separated with a characterization of
service as other than honorable.

5.  By letter dated 23 February 2004, the Commander, USAHRC – STL informed
the applicant she had reviewed the Report of Board Proceedings and approved
the findings and recommendations of the board.

6.  On 23 February 2004, the applicant was discharged from the USAR with a
characterization of service of other than honorable under the provisions of
Army Regulation 135-175.

7.  In February 2004, the applicant applied to the ADRB for upgrade of his
discharge.  On 17 September 2004, the ADRB determined the applicant's
administrative separation board had not been properly constituted and that
his discharge was improper.  The ADRB voted to grant relief in the form of
an upgrade of the characterization of his service to fully honorable and to
change the authority for his separation to reflect by order of the
Secretary of the Army.  Orders dated 1 November 2004 discharged the
applicant from the USAR effective 23 February 2004 with an honorable
characterization of service.

8.  A new Honorable Discharge Certificate, signed by the Deputy Assistant
Secretary (Army Review Boards), was issued to show the applicant was
honorably discharged from the USAR on 23 February 2004.

9.  The Honorable Discharge Certificate provided by the applicant is signed
by the Commander, USAHRC –STL and erroneously shows he was discharged on 1
November 2004.

10.  Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers), paragraph 2-8a
states that, except as otherwise provided in subparagraphs b and c (both
pertaining to Army National Guard officers), Headquarters, Department of
the Army (HQDA) will take final action on the recommendations of boards of
officers based on the reasons given in paragraphs 2-10 through 2-14.
Paragraph 2-20.1a(1) states that, when a board recommends the involuntary
separation of an officer, HQDA (Commander, ARPERCEN) will approve the
recommendation of the board and advise the commander concerned to take
necessary action to separate the officer.

11.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 14093(c) states that, if a board of
inquiry determines the officer has failed to establish that the officer
should be retained in an active status, the board shall recommend to the
Secretary concerned that the officer not be retained in an active status.
Section 14903(d) states that, after review of the recommendation of a board
of inquiry, the Secretary may remove the officer from an active status or
determine that the case be closed.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Title 10, U. S. Code states that, if a board of inquiry determines the
officer has failed to establish that the officer should be retained in an
active status, the board shall recommend to the Secretary concerned that
the officer not be retained in an active status.  After review of the
recommendation, the Secretary may remove the officer from an active status
or determine that the case be closed.  However, Title 10, U. S. Code does
not prohibit the Secretary from delegating this authority.  In accordance
with the governing regulation, the authority to approve the applicant's
involuntary separation action was delegated to the Commander, USAHRC – STL.


2.  The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to show his 23
February 2004 separation was approved by an improper authority, and the
ADRB action did not change his date of separation.  The ADRB merely
upgraded his discharge and changed the reason for separation.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__tlp___  __bpi___  __jgh___  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.




                                  __Terry L. Placek_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050011479                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060131                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.03                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]