DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                     BCMR Docket No. 2003-084 
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
GARMON, Attorney-Advisor: 
 
 
This is a proceeding under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and section 
425  of  title  14  of the  United  States  Code.    It  was  docketed  on  May  20,  2003  upon  the 
BCMR’s receipt of the applicant’s request for correction. 
 
 
ed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 

This final decision, dated February 18, 2004, is signed by the three duly appoint-

 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST  

 
The applicant, a former seaman telecommunications specialist (SNTC; pay grade 
 
E-3), asked that his discharge be upgraded from general Under Honorable Conditions 
to Honorable, thereby allowing him to use educational benefits under the Montgomery 
GI Bill (MGIB) program.   
 

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS 

 
The applicant alleged that he is unjustly being denied the use of his MGIB bene-
fits.  According to MGIB regulations, a member must have received an Honorable dis-
charge during a period of eligible service in order to use educational benefits under the 
program.    He  alleged  that  in  advising  him  to  extend  his  original  enlistment  upon  its 
expiration, rather than reenlist, his unit never told him that he could lose eligibility for 
MGIB  benefits  should  the  character  of  his  separation  be  other  than  Honorable.    He 
alleged  that  because  he  was  not  fully  counseled  of  his  “legal  rights,”  he  missed  the 
opportunity  to  satisfy  the  period  of  honorable  service  required  in  order  to  use  any 
MGIB educational benefits.   

 

In  support  of  his  application,  the  applicant  submitted  a  statement  in  which  he 
wrote  that  he  now  regrets  the  manner  in  which  he  was  discharged  from  the  Coast 
Guard.  He wrote that after he lost the  xxxxxxxxx business he began while still in the 
service, he realized the importance of an education.  He stated that in November 2002, 
he  enrolled  in  an  online  degree  program  to  obtain  a  Bachelor  of  Science  in  Business 
Marketing but that he has been unable to continue his studies due to a lack of funding.   

 
The applicant also wrote that since his separation from the Coast Guard, he has 
counseled others who were seeking a career to join the Armed Forces.  He stated that 
close  members  of  his  family  have  had  rewarding  careers  in  different  branches  of  the 
military but that he desires to be the first in his family to obtain a Bachelor’s degree.  In 
closing,  he  asked  that,  in  making  a  final  decision  in  his  case,  the  Board  focus  on  his 
positive  accomplishments  and  the  decorations  and  awards  he  received  during  his 
period of Coast Guard service.   
 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 

On  August  3,  1987,  the  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  for  four  years.  
Prior to entering in the Coast Guard, he had served for twenty-three days in the United 
States Air Force.  
 
 
On February 6, 1991, the applicant was given special recognition for his “excep-
tional performance of duty” through “poor weather, long hours, and numerous other 
obstacles  to  safely  finish  the  job.”    He  was  commended  for  his  “willingness  to  serve, 
attention to duty and dedication to mission.”   
 
 
On  May  20,  1991,  the  applicant  voluntarily  extended  his  enlistment  for  thirty-
three months to have sufficient obligated service to enroll in “A” School.  As a result of 
this extension, his new expiration of enlistment (EOE) became May 3, 1994.  Upon com-
pleting “A” School in October 1991, he was advanced to E-4 and voluntarily extended 
his enlistment for an additional seven months, through December 3, 1994, in order to 
accept overseas transfer orders.   

 
On  February  7,  1992,  a  negative  page  7  entry  was  entered  into  the  applicant’s 
record,  noting  that  the  period  of  eligibility  for  his  first  Coast  Guard  Good  Conduct 
Award was terminated due to his being assigned a mark of 3 in the conduct character-
istic.  Thereafter, several positive page 7s were entered in his record in 1992, 1993, and 
1994. 

 
On  October  18,  1994,  the  applicant  extended  his  enlistment  for  two  years  and 
eight  months,  through  August  2,  1997,  for  purposes  of  the  High  Year  Tenure  (HYT) 
program.  Because the applicant had not yet attained pay grade E-5, he was restricted 

by the provisions of HYT and ineligible to reenlist beyond his tenth anniversary in the 
Coast Guard.   
 
On  January  29,  1996,  the  applicant  formally  requested  to  be  honorably  dis-
 
charged from the Coast Guard.  He explained to the Coast Guard Personnel Command 
(CGPC) that at the time he extended his enlistment through August 2, 1997, he believed 
that  his  domestic  circumstances  would  remain  the  same.    However,  he  stated  that 
shortly after extending his enlistment, he became divorced from his wife, who moved 
with their child over 1000 miles away.  He also stated that he had developed a xxxxxxxx 
business that he wished to devote himself to on a full-time basis.  He stated that his dis-
charge  would  allow  him  to  see  his  daughter  more  frequently  and  to  better  serve  his 
xxxxxxxxx customers.   
 
On January 30, 1996, the applicant’s CO wrote a first endorsement to his request 
 
for discharge.  With respect to the “Voluntary Early Release Program for Active Duty 
Enlisted Personnel,” the CO stated that there was no program for “soliciting candidates 
for a voluntary early release from [the] service.”  He stated that the applicant had some 
personal issues which had been difficult to resolve as a result of his duties and that “the 
prospect of a personal business opportunity … would allow him to better resolve these 
matters ….”  He stated that, in light of the fact that he had more personnel in the appli-
cant’s rate than for which was billeted, he had no objections to the request if it was in 
the best interest of the service.   
 
On February 14, 1996, a negative page 7 entry was entered into the applicant’s 
 
record regarding his failure to report for duty on February 9, 1996.  It was noted that the 
applicant failed to notify his supervisor or training petty officer until February 12, 1996 
that he was experiencing difficulties in completing the assigned task for an All-Hands 
training  scheduled  on  February  13,  1996.    The  applicant’s  actions  and  behavior  was 
stated  to  have  been  “unsatisfactory  in  completing  assigned  collateral  duties  and  per-
formance that is expected from a Third Class Petty Officer.”  He was further counseled 
about his responsibilities and advised that “any future incidents may lead to discipli-
nary action.”   
 
On February 26, 1996, the applicant had a negative page 7 entered into his record 
 
to document his counseling on “the serious nature” of his being charged with driving 
under the influence (DUI), reckless driving, and wanton endangerment on January 27, 
1996.  He was further notified that the situation would be considered his first alcohol 
incident  and  that  he  was  being  referred  to  a  community  hospital  for  evaluation  on 
March 20, 1996.   
 
By memorandum dated February 28, 1996, the Commander of CGPC informed 
 
the applicant that his request for early release from active duty had been denied.  The 
Commander stated that there was no policy or regulation in effect to “allow [his] early 

release this far in advance of  [his] normal expiration of enlistment.”  He was encour-
aged to complete his enlistment as agreed.   
 
On March 7, 1996, an adverse page 7 was entered into the applicant’s record to 
 
document  his  March  6,  1996  civil  conviction  stemming  from  charges  of  DUI,  reckless 
driving, and wanton endangerment.  It was noted that the applicant was fined $500.00, 
had his driving privileges restricted for 30 days, and was required to complete a state-
sponsored educational program for first-time offenders.  The page 7 further noted that 
he  was  counseled  on  Coast  Guard  policies  concerning  alcohol  use  and/or  abuse  and 
was  directed  to  have  a  mandatory  screening  at  a  community  hospital  on  March  20, 
1996.   
 
 
On March 9, 1996, the applicant was counseled regarding the February 28, 1996 
denial of his request for early release from active duty.  The page 7 entry notes that he 
was advised of the following:   
 

[T]here is no policy or regulation in effect authorizing early separation other than those 
defined in Section 12-B of [the Personnel Manual] – for which he does not qualify.  He 
was instructed to contact  the District CEA [command enlisted advisor] if  he  wanted to 
pursue this matter any further and seek advice from [his District legal office] concerning 
repercussions resulting from general discharges. 
 
Additionally, [the applicant] was counselled, by all members of his chain  of command, 
concerning his requirement to attend screening scheduled on [March 20, 1996] at [a com-
munity hospital.]  Failure to attend this evaluation would be failure to obey an order or 
regulation (Article 92 UCMJ) and may result in disciplinary action. 

 
 
On March 11, 1996, the applicant had a negative page 7 entered into his service 
record,  assigning  him  marks  of  2  in  the  “well-being,”  “loyalty,”  and  “adaptability” 
dimensions of his March 6, 1996 enlisted performance evaluation form (EPEF).  It stated 
that the applicant “frequently failed to maintain [his] assigned collateral duties creating 
an increased workload,” was “convicted of driving under the influence, reckless driv-
ing, and wanton endangerment,” and “consistently displayed discontent with the orga-
nization’s decisions concerning [his] early release.”  As a result of his being assigned an 
“unsatisfactory” in the conduct performance dimension, the applicant’s period of eligi-
bility for a Good Conduct Award was terminated.   
 
 
On  March  14,  1996,  the  applicant’s  qualifications  as  a  communications  watch 
officer were revoked.  A negative page 7 states that the actions taken were a result of 
“deteriorating/inconsistent watchstander performance and statements made on March 
13, 1996 during an evaluation counselling session.”  It was noted that during that ses-
sion, the applicant stated that he was unsure whether he “could be counted-on to stand 
[his] watch” and that “[m]aybe [he could be relied on] for [the coming] weekend.”  Con-
sequently, the applicant was reassigned as a day worker within the operations depart-
ment.    

 

On March 15, 1996, the applicant was reduced in rank to SNTC, pay grade E-3, as 
a result of non-judicial punishment for dereliction of duty.  He submitted a handwritten 
note to his commanding officer stating the following: 

 
I am writing you this letter to let you know that I’m not very proud of what I’m going to 
do.  I’m informing the Coast [Guard] at this time, that I will not be going to the screening 
and counseling that I was assigned.  I’m very sorry for this. 

 
 
On March 19, 1996, the applicant was placed on six months’ probation pursuant 
to  Articles  12-B-16  and  12-B-18  of  the  Personnel  Manual  because  of  an  “established 
pattern  of  shirking.”    The  negative  page  7  entry  stated  that  during  the  previous  two 
months, the applicant’s performance had deteriorated and been inconsistent in that he 
had failed to complete assigned collateral duties, submitted inaccurate radio logs, failed 
to  perform  scheduled  broadcasts,  and  been  observed  watching  television  during  a 
scheduled watch.  The applicant was counseled on guidelines that he had to adhere to 
during his probation and on the consequences of his failure comply with those guide-
lines.   
 
 
On  March  20,  1996,  a  negative  page  7  was  entered  into  the  applicant’s  record, 
stating that his period of eligibility for a Good Conduct Award was terminated due to 
his  being  assigned  a  mark  of  “unsatisfactory”  in  the  conduct  performance  dimension 
during the evaluation period ending March 15, 1996.  He was also assigned a mark of 1 
in the “loyalty” dimension and marks of 2 in the “quality of work,” “working with oth-
ers,” and “setting an example” dimensions.  The entry stated that the applicant repeat-
edly demonstrated his discontent with the Coast Guard’s decisions concerning his early 
release requests.   
 
 
On March 25, 1996, the applicant had a negative page 7 entered into his record 
about the requirement that he attend a March 27, 1996 screening at a community hos-
pital that had been rescheduled from March 20, 1996.  He was advised that his failure to 
attend the screening would be a failure to obey an order or regulation and could result 
in disciplinary action. 
 
 
On  March  27,  1996,  the  applicant  signed  a  statement  acknowledging  that  he 
unconditionally  waived  his  right  to  a  hearing  before  an  Administrative  Discharge 
Board.  In that statement, he acknowledged that he was advised of (1) his commanding 
officer’s recommendation that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions 
by reason of misconduct and (2) his rights to appear in a hearing with counsel before an 
Administrative Discharge Board, as a result of such recommendation.  He also acknowl-
edged that he had voluntarily signed the statement after being assisted and counseled 
by legally qualified counsel.   
 

 
By  memorandum,  dated  March  28,  1996,  the  Group  Commander  forwarded  to 
CGPC  his  recommendation  that  the  applicant  be  discharged  for  misconduct.    The 
Group Commander outlined a “chronological history of the applicant’s performance,” 
which demonstrated an “established pattern of shirking.”  He stated that the applicant’s 
attitude  and  performance  have  “steadily  deteriorated  since  receiving  the  final  denial 
letter [to his request for early release from the Coast Guard].”  The Group Commander 
stated that the applicant acknowledged his intention to recommend him for discharge.  
He further stated that upon meeting with counsel, the applicant had indicated that he 
did not wish to make an additional statement and waived his right to an Administrative 
Discharge  Board.    With  respect  to  the  applicant’s  current  performance,  the  Group 
Commander stated the following: 
 

[The applicant] has  made it clear that he  will do whatever is necessary to  obtain a dis-
charge  short  of  a  court  martial.    After  pursuing  a  discharge  through  the  chain  of  com-
mand and contacting both the Group and District Command Enlisted Advisors, as well 
as  the  MCPOCG,  he  then  requested  assistance  through  his  Congressman.    A  congres-
sional inquiry has been initiated and is being processed at Coast Guard Headquarters. 
 
I have removed [the applicant] from any duties in the Communications Center because I 
have  lost  faith  and  confidence  in  his  abilities.    Therefore,  [the  applicant]  can  no  longer 
fulfill the duties to which [he is] assigned.  I most strongly recommend that he expedi-
tiously be [sic] discharged.   

 
 
On March 29, 1996, the District Commander forwarded his endorsement of the 
Group Commander’s request to the Commander of CGPC.  He strongly recommended 
approval of the applicant’s discharge because he was “unreliable” and had “become a 
serious burden to his command.”   
 
On April 5, 1996, CGPC ordered the Group Commander to discharge the appli-
 
cant  by  reason  of  misconduct  under  Article  12-B-18  of  the  Personnel  Manual,  with  a 
separation code of JKN (misconduct).  
 
 
On April 12, 1996, the applicant signed a page 7 acknowledging that he had been 
counseled on and understood his rights on separation from the Coast Guard. He con-
firmed that all of his questions had been answered and that he had received his separa-
tion documents.   
 
 
On  April  26,  1996,  the  applicant  signed  a  page  7  acknowledging  that  he  had 
received a copy of Enclosures (1) through (3) of the MGIB Manual.  He also received 
pre-separation counseling on the MGIB program, which included coverage on “the pro-
cedures for applying for such benefits,” “[t]he consequences of requesting early separa-
tion  from  the  Coast  Guard  prior  to  meeting  the  minimum  service  requirements  to  be 
eligible for the MGIB benefits,” and “the opportunity to enroll into the MGIB program 
from VEAP, if [he was] being involuntarily separated.”   
 

 
Also on April 26, 1996, the applicant was discharged “Under Honorable Condi-
tions” with a JKN separation code, an RE-4 reenlistment code (not eligible for reenlist-
ment), and “Misconduct” as the narrative reason for separation on his DD 214.  At the 
time of his separation from the Coast Guard, the applicant was serving in pay grade E-3 
and was credited with 8 years, 8 months, and 24 days of active duty service. 
 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On  October  7,  2003,  the  Judge  Advocate  General  of  the  Coast  Guard  provided 
comments  to  the  Board.    He  attached  to  his  advisory  opinion  a  memorandum  on  the 
case prepared by CGPC.  In adopting the analysis of CGPC, the Chief Counsel recom-
mended that the Board grant no relief. 
 
The  Judge  Advocate  General  argued  that  the  applicant  submitted  an  untimely 
 
application and has failed to provide the Board with any reason why it is in the interest 
of justice to excuse the delay.  He alleged that the applicant’s request, dated April 16, 
2003, was submitted nearly four years after the expiration of the time limit for filing his 
application for correction.  He argued that the record clearly shows that the applicant 
was,  or  should  have  been,  aware  of  the  alleged  error  within  three  years  of  April  26, 
1996, the date when his DD 214 was issued to him.  He asserted that because the appli-
cant has offered no explanation in support of his claim that he did not discover the error 
until January 5, 2003, the three-year filing requirement under 33 C.F.R. § 52.22 should 
not be waived.  
 
 
The Judge Advocate General stated that in order to satisfy the eligibility require-
ments of the MGIB program, a member must be awarded an honorable discharge for an 
eligible  period  of  service  during  his  or  her  military  career,  even  if  a  subsequent 
discharge is only “Under Honorable Conditions.”  He asserted that because the appli-
cant voluntarily extended his original enlistment, he did not have an eligible period of 
service for the MGIB.  He asserted that prior to the applicant’s receiving a general dis-
charge,  he  was  counseled  on  the  ramifications  of  that  discharge  on  his  MGIB  entitle-
ment.  He contended that because the record contains no evidence of either an error or 
injustice, the applicant has failed to carry his burden of production and persuasion. 
 
 
The Judge Advocate  General argued that after the applicant’s request for early 
separation  was  disapproved,  his  record  shows  that  “he  embarked  on  a  purposeful 
course of conduct designed to get him kicked out of the Coast Guard as quickly as pos-
sible.”  He argued that in accordance with established policy, it was appropriate for the 
Coast Guard to administratively discharge the applicant when he “refus[ed] to perform 
his duties, refus[ed] to obey orders, and engag[ed] in illegal conduct.”  In fact, he assert-
ed, the applicant fails to allege that the Coast Guard committed any error with respect 
to his separation process but, instead, requests an upgrade of his discharge “[only to] 
avail  himself  of  the  educational  benefits  of  the  [MGIB  program].”    He  argued  that 

because the applicant chose to obtain an early discharge by inappropriate methods, his 
claim is without merit.   
 
The Judge Advocate General argued that the applicant was afforded all his due 
 
process rights at separation.  He asserted that prior to being placed on probation, the 
applicant was counseled on the consequences of continuing his poor performance.  He 
asserted that the applicant was properly notified of his CO’s intention to recommend 
his separation under honorable conditions and that he (the applicant) unconditionally 
waived his rights to have an administrative discharge board and to make a statement 
on his own behalf.  He asserted that the Board should deny relief in this case. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

On October 14, 2003, the Chair sent a copy of the views of the Coast Guard to the 

 
 
applicant and invited him to respond within 30 days.  The Board received no response. 
 

APPLICABLE LAW 

 
 
Article  7.g.  of  the  Commandant  Instruction  1760.9A  (Montgomery  G.I.  Bill 
(MGIB) – Active Duty Education Assistance Program) provides that commanding offi-
cers  are  required  to  counsel  all  active  duty  MGIB  participants  on  the  MGIB  program 
upon separation, request for early separation, and involuntary separation.   
 

Article 7.g.(2) of the instruction states that “MGIB participants who request early 
separation from the Coast Guard, prior to meeting the minimum service requirements 
to  be  eligible  for  MGIB  benefits  are  [to  be  counseled]  on  the  consequences  of  their 
actions.”  Article 7.g.(3) provides that members who are involuntarily separated from 
the  Coast  Guard  receive  pre-separation  counseling  on  the  benefits  of  enrolling  in  the 
MGIB, if he or she previously declined the opportunity to enroll.  It is further provided 
that an administrative entry to memorialize the counseling is signed by both the mem-
ber and the advisor and, thereafter, filed in the member’s record. 
 
 
Article 1 of Enclosure (1) to Commandant Instruction 1760.9A sets forth the eligi-
bility criteria for active duty personnel.  Article 1.D. provides that “[s]ervice members 
must receive an HONORABLE discharge for the term of service detailed in paragraph 
1.A.  or  B to  use  benefits.    This  does  not  include  a  general  discharge  under  honorable 
conditions.”  Article 1.B. states that “[s]ervice on active duty for at least 3 continuous 
years ….” 
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

The  Board  has  jurisdiction  concerning  this  matter  pursuant  to  10  U.S.C. 

 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submission, and appli-
cable law: 
 
 
1. 
§ 1552.   
 
 
The  applicant  was  discharged  from  the  Coast  Guard  on  April  26,  1996.  
The alleged error or injustice was or with reasonable diligence should have  been dis-
covered in April 1996, when he signed and received his discharge papers.  The applica-
tion for correction in this case is dated April 16, 2003.  Title 10 U.S.C. § 1552(b) provides 
that application for correction of military records must be filed within three years after 
the discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  Therefore, the application was untimely.   
 
 
Failure to file within three years may be excused by the Board, however, if 
it finds that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  The Board’s regulations state 
that “[i]f an application is untimely, the applicant shall set forth reasons in the applica-
tion  why  its  acceptance  is  in  the  interest  of  justice.    An  untimely  application  shall  be 
denied unless the Board finds that sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant a 
finding  that  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  excuse  the  failure  to  file  timely.”  
33 C.F.R.  §  52.22.    The  application  contains  no  stated  reason  why  the  Board  should 
waive  the  statute of  limitations  but  instead,  notes—also  without  explanation—that  he 
discovered the alleged error or injustice on January 5, 2003.  Even if this is the date he 
realized his ineligibility for MGIB benefits, it is not the date he discovered the character 
of his discharge, which is the error he alleges.   
 
 
In  addition  to  examining  the  length  of  delay  and  the  reasons  for  it,  the 
Board must also perform a cursory review of the merits to determine the likelihood of 
success  on  the  merits  of  the  claim.    See  Dickson  v.  Secretary  of  Defense,  68  F.3d  1396 
(D.D.C. 1995).  To that end, the Board finds that the applicant has presented insufficient 
evidence to show that the Coast Guard committed an error or injustice by allowing him 
to extend his original enlistment without informing him that he could lose his eligibility 
for the MGIB if he committed misconduct in the future and did not receive an honor-
able discharge.   
 
 
According to the MGIB Manual, members are to receive counseling about 
the  ramifications  of  separation  on  his  or  her  eligibility  for  MGIB  benefits  when  being 
processed for separation, early separation, or involuntary separation.  See Article 7.g. of 
the MGIB Manual.  The record indicates that while the applicant was being processed 
for  separation,  he  was  counseled  on  his  MGIB  eligibility  and  that  he  acknowledged 
receiving pre-separation counseling on the MGIB and copies of Enclosures (1) through 
(3) of the MGIB Manual.  As a result, the preponderance of the evidence indicates that 
the  Coast  Guard  complied  with  its  regulations  by  fully  counseling  the  applicant  in  a 

4. 

2. 

3. 

5. 

6. 

timely manner about the effect that the character of his service would have on his MGIB 
eligibility.  Moreover, the applicant has failed to prove that he was entitled to receive, or 
that the Coast Guard had a duty to provide, MGIB pre-separation counseling when he 
signed his extension contracts. 
 
 
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the lack of 
such counseling works an injustice against the applicant.  The applicant’s records reflect 
that he extended his original enlistment contract on three dates: May 20, 1991; October 
2, 1991; and October 18, 1994.  His records also indicate that he asked for an early dis-
charge from the Coast Guard on January 1, 1996 and was subsequently recommended 
for separation due to misconduct under Article 12-B-18 on March 28, 1996.  Because the 
applicant’s extensions took place prior to his request for early discharge and his CO’s 
recommendation  for  separation,  the  record  fails  to  show  that  his  unit  had  reason  to 
know  at  the  time  he  executed  his  extension  contracts  that  he  would  be  discharged 
“Under Honorable Conditions” or that his service would somehow not be considered 
fully honorable.  Under these circumstances, the Board is not persuaded that the appli-
cant was treated unjustly.   
 
 
Accordingly, the Board finds that it is not in the interest of justice to waive 
the  statute  of  limitations  in  this  case.    The  applicant’s  request  should  be  denied  for 
untimeliness because it lacks merit.   
 
 

7. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

ORDER 

The application of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, USCG, for the correction of 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 Julia Andrews 

 

 

 

 
 Nancy Lynn Friedman 

 

 

 

 
 
 Donald A. Pedersen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
his military record is denied.