DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2009-169 
 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx   

 

 

FINAL DECISION 

 

This proceeding was conducted under the provisions of section 1552 of title 10 and sec-
tion 425 of title 14 of the United States Code.  The Chair docketed the case upon receiving the 
completed  application  on  May  26,  2009,  and  assigned  it  to  staff  member  J.  Andrews  to  pre-
pare the decision for the Board as required by 33 C.F.R. § 52.61(c). 
 
 
appointed members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This  final  decision,  dated  March  26,  2010,  is  approved  and  signed  by  the  three  duly 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS  

 
 
The applicant, who was retired from the Coast Guard Reserve as a first class petty officer 
on  March  1,  2007,  asked  the  Board  to  void  his  retirement  and  reinstate  him  in  the  drilling 
Selected Reserve (SELRES).   
 
 
The applicant alleged that after he failed a physical fitness test (PT) in October 2006, a 
third  class  yeoman  (YN3)  at  his  port  security  unit  (PSU)  told  him  that  if  he  did  not  request 
retirement, he would be transferred from the SELRES to the  Individual  Ready Reserve (IRR) 
and discharged within two months because of his age.  (He was 53 years old in October 2006.)  
Moreover, he alleged that the YN3 also told him that his discharge would be other than honor-
able because he had failed the PT and that he would not be able to get a job in law enforcement 
without an honorable discharge.  Therefore, the YN3 advised him to request retirement. 
 
 
The applicant alleged that he failed his final PT retest in October 2006 primarily because 
during the running part  of the test, he  “went back to help a third class  petty officer who was 
injured.”  After the applicant failed the final PT, his chief inquired about his options and was told 
that retirement was his only option.  In November 2006, a lieutenant also told him that retirement 
was his only option. 
 
 
On December 28, 2006, when the applicant visited the Administrative Office, a YN1 told 
him, “you were deliberately forced to retire by providing you with inaccurate information regard-
ing the IRR and they could have transferred you to another command if they wanted to. … You 

need  to  contact  Master  Chief  [M]  of  D7  and  provide  him  with  this  information.”    When  the 
applicant raised the issue with Master Chief M, he assigned Master Chief K to address the appli-
cant’s  claim.    Master  Chief  K  was  told  that  the  applicant  had  failed  the  PT  retest  after  being 
given only five months to prepare.  The applicant claimed that he should have had six months to 
prepare and that he should have been given remedial physical training instruction during those 
six months.  Master Chief K reached an agreement under which the applicant would return to his 
unit for a baseline PT and remedial training and would have a final retest six months later.  If he 
passed the PT, he would not have to retire.  The applicant stated that he “agreed to this arrange-
ment, but it was broken.” 
 
 
The  applicant  alleged  that  when  he  took  the  baseline  PT  in  March  2007,  he  failed  it 
because he had been working 82 hours per week at his civilian job.  “During the run, however, I 
was being paced by one of the Chiefs, who just happened to find out why I have never been able 
to pass the running” portion of the test.  “Since his observation, I have since been able to make 
the correction  and have  passed a law enforcement PT within the necessary time limit.   It has 
taken this long for anyone to realize that I have difficulty in running and that it could be cor-
rected.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that in July 2007, he ran into a former subordinate and his wife.  
When the applicant spoke to him, the man said he was in a hurry and had to leave.  When his 
wife asked him why he would not stop to talk, the man told her he had been ordered not to talk to 
the applicant. 
 
Applicant’s Submissions 
 
In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted a copy of an email that he sent to 
 
Master Chief K on February 3, 2009.  In the email, he stated that when he arrived at his new unit, 
a PSU, on May 5, 2006, they were not happy to hear that he had not been required to take a PT 
for 15 years.  On May 19, 2006, he took the PT and received a Page 7 because he failed it.  The 
Page 7 was dated April 19, 2006, but he was told that he should sign it anyway and that the date 
would be corrected.  The unit conducted PT practice on his drill weekends in June and July, and 
he was told that he was improving.  In August, there was no PT—just administrative work.  On 
September 16, 2006, family problems prevented him from participating in a unit PT exercise.  
On October 21, 2006, he took the PT again and passed the sit-up, push-up, and stretch portions 
but failed the 1.5-mile run “because there was no one around to help a third class who had hurt 
himself while running.”  Chief F told him he would be “processed for other than honorable con-
ditions” discharge and so his only option was to retire.  On October 24, 2006, he asked Chief F if 
he could transfer to the Marine Safety Office in xxxxxxxx, and Chief F said he would look into 
it.  The applicant also contacted YN1 A “to put a hold on the retirement until [Chief F] let me 
know about the transfer.”  On November 18, 2006, Chief F told him that the command would not 
allow him to transfer and that his only option was to complete his request for retirement.  LT A 
asked him why his request for retirement had been placed on hold.  When he explained that he 
had hoped for a transfer but that it had not been approved and that he would be retiring, LT A 
smiled and said it was the only way.  On December 21, 2006, he was visiting the administrative 
office of the air station when YN1 A told him that “the command was deliberately forcing me to 

retire.”  On January 5, 2007, he visited the administrative office again.  YN1 A suggested he 
contact Master Chief M.  LT K from the PSU arrived to hear his complaint. 
 
 
The applicant submitted a copy of a letter he sent to a Master Chief J on April 11, 2008, 
about information that he wanted an admiral to have in considering his request to return to an 
active  status  in  the  Reserve.    He  submitted  evidence  of  an  award  that  was  missing  from  his 
record because his jacket had been lost by his prior command and he noted that he had been sent 
to Leadership School in September 2006 and had spent $200 on new parts of his uniform.  On 
May  6,  2008,  the  applicant  wrote  to  Master  Chief  J  again  and  inquired  into  the  status  of  his 
request to return to an active status. 
 

The applicant also submitted an email that he sent to Master Chief K on May 26, 2008.  
He stated that someone had voided the agreement that Master Chief K and the PSU had reached 
in March under which the PSU was supposed to help him improve his PT run.  He asked about 
his other options. 

SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S RECORD 

 
 
On May 20, 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard Reserve.  He had previously 
served four years on active duty in the U.S. Navy.  He gained a satisfactory year of service for 
retirement purposes every year thereafter, and on May 31, 2004, the Personnel Service Center 
(PSC) sent him notification that he was eligible for Reserve retired pay when he turned 60 years 
old on December 27, 2012, because he had completed 20 years of satisfactory service for retire-
ment purposes.  For most of his military service, the applicant drilled at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  
On May 9, 2006, the applicant reported for SELRES duty at a PSU in xxxxx. 
 
 
A form CG-3307 (“Page 7”) in the applicant’s record dated June 11, 2006, states that he 
had failed to pass the physical fitness test administered on April 22, 2006, and that every member 
of the PSU had to pass the test within six months and biannually thereafter to be fit to deploy.  
The Page 7 further states that members who do not pass the test might be transferred to the IRR 
and will not normally be transferred to another unit but might be able to return to drilling at the 
PSU from the IRR once they pass the test. 
 
 
and he was retired from the Reserve on March 1, 2007. 

The applicant submitted a request to retire after failing another PT test in October 2006, 

 

 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On October 15, 2009, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) submitted an advisory opinion 
in which he recommended that the Board deny relief in this case.  In so doing, he adopted the 
findings and analysis provided by the Personnel Service Center (PSC) in an attached memoran-
dum.  
 
PSC  stated  that  the  applicant’s  “concerns  have  been  previously  addressed  by  subject 
 
senatorial  inquiry”  and  submitted  copies  of  that  correspondence,  which  is  summarized  below.  
PSC claimed that the applicant failed to pass his initial PT upon arriving at the PSU and “was 

provided an additional six months to successfully complete all physical fitness requirements” but 
was unable to do so.  PSC stated that members who fail the PT are normally transferred to the 
IRR, but in this case the applicant “elected retirement in lieu of transfer to the IRR.”  The appli-
cant submitted his request for retirement on March 1, 2007, and it was approved.  Under Article 
12.C.11.c. of the Personnel Manual, approved retirement requests are not cancelled or delayed 
“unless a specific Service need exists.” 
 
PSC stated that the command of the PSU presumptively acted correctly in applying Coast 
 
Guard  policies  and  procedures  and  that  the  applicant  “has  failed  to  substantiate  any  error  or 
injustice with regards to his record.” 
 
PSC’s Submissions 
 
 
On April 5, 2007, the applicant sent his senator a letter regarding his “involuntary retire-
ment from the Coast Guard Reserve.”  The applicant stated that he was supposed to return to 
inactive  duty  training  (IDT)  for  six  months  and  to  take  a  “base  line”  PT  test.    The  applicant 
stated that after six months of IDT, he “was to be placed in remedial physical training in prepara-
tion for a formal PT exam after the six months of training. … Depending on the results, I was to 
remain on duty or face retirement without any questions.” 
 
 
The applicant stated that while attending drills on March 10 and 11 (no year stated), he 
took his base line PT test and received the Page 7 regarding his failure to pass it.  A chief at the 
PSU ran with him during the base line PT test and recommended a change in his running tech-
nique. 
 
The applicant requested the senator’s “assistance in returning to duty based on the fact 
 
that procedures for someone that had not taken any PT exams since March 1991 in preparation 
for Operation Desert Storm. … My retirement should be removed because I should not have had 
a choice of an other than honorable discharge or retire[ment].” 
 
 
The senator forwarded his letter to the Coast Guard and requested a response.  On June 
12, 2007, the Coast Guard replied that personnel assigned to a PSU must successfully complete a 
physical fitness test and members who do not meet the standards are usually moved to the IRR.  
The Coast Guard stated that the applicant failed to pass the test when he arrived at the PSU and 
was given another six months to pass the test but was unable to do so.  The applicant “elected 
retirement in lieu of transfer to the  IRR.  After a thorough  review of [his] service record, we 
found  the  member  requested  a  voluntary  transfer  to  retired  status  awaiting  pay  (RET-2)  on 
November 19, 2006.  [His] retirement was effective March 1, 2007.” 
 
 
The  Coast  Guard  further  stated  that  the  applicant  participated  in  a  scheduled  drill  on 
March 10 – 11, 2007, after his retirement date.  Because it is unclear whether he had received 
“proper notification of his retirement prior to his scheduled drill,” the Coast Guard had author-
ized payment for those drills. 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On January 4, 2010, the applicant submitted his response to the views of the Coast Guard.  
The applicant alleged that his pay statements would prove that he first reported for duty at the 
PSU in May 2006 and that he was not given a full six months to pass the PT test.  He stated that 
he moved from xxxxxx to xxxxx in April 2006 and did not report to his new unit until May. He 
alleged that the date on the Page 7 concerning his failure to pass the PT is erroneous and that he 
pointed out the error when he signed the Page 7 and was told that it would be fixed.    Therefore, 
he should have had June, July, August, September, October, and November to pass the test, but 
he was given only five months.  When he took the retest in October 2006, he failed the 1.5-mile 
run because he stopped to help a third class petty officer who was suffering from a back injury.  
After helping this petty  officer to the PSU and telling him to see the  corpsman, the applicant 
continued his run.  However, he had lost five minutes and did not pass the test.  “The third class 
was  able  to  get  a  page  seven  with  an  alibi.    There  was  no  excuse  for  my  failure;  I  used  my 
judgment in assisting a fellow serviceman and as a [result] ended my military career.” 
 
 
The applicant alleged that when he failed the second PT test in October 2006, he was told 
that his only option was to retire and that his command would not approve his transfer to the IRR 
or to another unit.  Although he submitted his retirement paperwork, he stopped it from being 
submitted to Headquarters and asked Chief F for a transfer to another unit or “anything else that 
could be done to avoid retirement.”  Chief  F was told that “the unit would only  entertain my 
retirement;  nothing  else  would  be  approved.”    A  YN3  told  him  that  if  he  did  not  retire,  then 
because of his age he “would be [discharged] after being in the IRR and that it was going to be 
with a General Discharge.”  When he complained that he was being forced to retire, the YN3 
told him that it was in his best interest. 
 
 
The applicant repeated his allegations about YN1 A’s statements and alleged that Master 
Chief M contacted the PSU on his behalf and they reached an agreement that he was to drill for 
six  more  months,  take  another  base  line  PT,  and  take  a  final  PT  six  months  after  that.    If  he 
passed, the retirement would be rescinded. 
 
 
The applicant stated that he attended drill in March 2007 and took the PT but did not pass 
because of the number of hours he had been working at his civilian job.  A chief ran with him 
and noticed a major problem with his running posture and promised to work with him to help 
him improve.  Although that did not happen, the applicant did take his advice, and his running 
has greatly improved.  The applicant alleged that he knows of another reservist who was told, 
“we can get you to retire.”  The applicant asked the Board to obtain his leave and earnings state-
ments and to contact some of the people he has named to get statements from them. 
 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 

 
 
Chapter 1.C.2. of the Reserve Policy Manual (RPM) states that the Ready Reserve con-
sists of members in an active status—i.e., they may be recalled to active duty—are in either the 
SELRES or the IRR.  The two groups are distinguished as follows: 
 

a. The Selected Reserve (SELRES). Those individuals within the Ready Reserve designated as so 
essential  to  initial  contingency  requirements  that  they  have  priority  over  all  other  Reserve  ele-

ments. They are assigned to Coast Guard or selected Joint Service units, and are required to train 
for mobilization as prescribed in 10 U.S.C. 10147 by participating in inactive duty training periods 
and active duty for the purpose of annual training. Coast Guard SELRES members are generally 
authorized 48 paid Inactive Duty Training (IDT) drills and at least 12 paid Active Duty for Train-
ing (ADT) days per fiscal year. … 
  
b. The Individual  Ready Reserve (IRR).  A  manpower pool principally consisting of individuals 
who have had training and have previously served in the Active forces or in the Selected Reserve. 
The IRR consists of individuals who … have fulfilled their MSO and who voluntarily remain in 
the IRR. IRR members are not required to meet the same IDT and ADT training requirements as 
Selected reservists.  

(1) IRR members may voluntarily participate in Reserve training programs (i.e., IDT or 
ADT) for retirement points only, without pay, and shall be assigned to the same Coast Guard or 
selected  Joint  Service  units  as  their  SELRES  counterparts.    They  may  also  apply  to  perform 
Active Duty Special Work (ADSW) or Readiness Management Periods (RMPs) for pay. … 

(2) Non-drilling IRR members are assigned to Commander, Personnel Command (rpm), 
who serves as members’ commanding officer and point of contact for all administrative purposes. 

Chapter 4.A.2. of the RPM states that to satisfactorily participate in the SELRES, mem-

 
 
bers are obligated to, inter alia,  
 

i.  Maintain physical fitness and weight standards. Different physical fitness standards are applied 
to  different  Coast  Guard  programs  and  can  be  found  in  the  Training  and  Education  Manual, 
COMDTINST M1500.10 (series) … ; and,   
 
j.  … Additionally, all members in the Ready Reserve or Standby Reserve, Active Status who are 
retirement qualified, except for having reached sixty years of age, must accrue a minimum of 50 
retirement points in an anniversary year to remain in an active status (see Section 4.B.5).  
 
Unsatisfactory participation is the failure to comply with any of the contractual obligations or pro-
gram requirements listed above. … See Section 4.B, Failure to Participate. 

Chapter 4.B.2.b. of the RPM states the following: 

Members of the SELRES who have fulfilled their statutory MSO under 10 U.S.C. 651 and whose 
participation has been unsatisfactory, may be transferred to the IRR for the balance of their current 
enlistment if they still possess the potential for useful service if mobilized.  Personnel Command 
(CGPC-rpm) is the approving official for all requests for transfer to the IRR.  They may also be 
discharged as outlined above if they do not possess the potential for useful service if mobilized.  

Chapter 4.B.2.a.3. of the RPM states the following: 

Enlisted members may be discharged for unsatisfactory participation. Unless the member requests 
a hearing before an Administrative Discharge Board, the discharge process does not require con-
vening a board to consider the circumstances and recommend appropriate action when the appro-
priate commander has recommended that the person be discharged under honorable conditions and 
that he or she does not possess the potential for useful service if mobilized. See Personnel Manual, 
COMDTINST M1000.6 (series), Article 12.B.  

Chapter 4.B.5.b. of the RPM states the following: 

Members in the Ready Reserve or Standby Reserve, Active Status who are qualified for retirement 
under  10  U.S.C.  12371,  except  for  having  reached  sixty  years  of  age,  and  who  fail  to  earn  50 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

points  each  anniversary  year  will  be  processed  by  the  Personnel  Command  (CGPC-rpm)  for 
removal from an active status. Requests for waivers may be forwarded to CGPC-rpm via the chain 
of command.  
 
 
Chapter  8.C.12.a.  of  the  RPM  states  that  “[m]embers  may  request  transfer  to  RET-2 
status at any time after receipt of notification of completion of 20 years satisfactory federal ser-
vice.”  Chapter 8.C.12.e. states that “[m]embers who request retirement must cease drilling as of 
the day prior to the requested retirement date, regardless of receipt of retirement request approval. No 
payments or point credit will be given to a member for drilling on or after the day of requested 
retirement.” 
 
Article 12.C.11.c.1. of the Personnel Manual states that “[t]he decision to submit a retire-
 
ment  memorandum  is  a  serious  one  because  the  projected  separation  triggers  transfer  and 
advancement actions that, if reversed, cause hardship to other members. Therefore, Commander 
(CGPC-epm-1) normally will not honor a request to cancel or delay an already approved retire-
ment date unless a specific Service need exists and only under these conditions.”. 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 

The Board makes the following findings and conclusions on the basis of the applicant's 

 
 
military record and submissions, the Coast Guard's submissions, and applicable law: 
 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.  

1. 

 
3. 

The applicant was timely filed. 
 

2. 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair,  acting 
pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition of the case with-
out a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation.1   

The applicant alleged that his retirement on March 1, 2007, was coerced, that he 
was not provided sufficient time to pass his retest in October 2006 and that he should be rein-
stated in the SELRES.  The Board begins its analysis in every case by presuming that the dis-
puted information in the applicant’s military record is correct as it appears in his record, and the 
applicant  bears  the  burden  of  proving  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  the  disputed 
information is erroneous or unjust.2  Absent evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that 
Coast Guard officials and other Government employees have carried out their duties “correctly, 
lawfully, and in good faith.”3  
                                                 
1 See Steen v. United States, No. 436-74, 1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 585, at *21 (Dec. 7, 1977) (holding that “whether 
to grant such a hearing is a decision entirely within the discretion of the Board”); Flute v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 
34,  40  (1976)  (“The  denial  of  a  hearing  before  the  BCMR  does  not  per  se  deprive  plaintiff  of  due  process.”); 
Armstrong  v.  United  States,  205  Ct.  Cl.  754,  764  (1974)  (stating  that  a  hearing  is  not  required  because  BCMR 
proceedings are non-adversarial and 10 U.S.C. § 1552 does not require them).  
2 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(b); see Docket No. 2000-194, at 35-40 (DOT BCMR, Apr. 25, 2002, approved by the Deputy 
General Counsel, May 29, 2002) (rejecting the “clear and convincing” evidence standard recommended by the Coast 
Guard and adopting the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for all cases prior to the promulgation of the latter 
standard in 2003 in 33 C.F.R.§ 52.24(b)).   
3 Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sanders v. United States, 594 F.2d 804, 813 (Ct. Cl. 
1979). 

Members assigned to a PSU must pass the physical fitness test, and the applicant 
admitted that he failed the PSU’s test three times, first in the spring of 2006, then in the fall of 
2006, and finally in the spring of 2007.  The applicant alleged that his test in the fall of 2006 took 
place less than six months after his first test in May 2006.  However, he also failed the test in 
March 2007, ten months after he first failed the test.  The applicant complained that he was not 
provided remedial fitness training, but a reservist’s physical fitness cannot depend upon training 
provided  by  the  Reserve  because  reservists  drill  only  one  weekend  a  month.   The  applicant’s 
explanations of why he failed the test three times do not persuade the Board that his command 
committed error or injustice in expecting him to pass the test or in concluding, when he did not 
pass the test in the fall of 2006, that he was not physically fit to continue his assignment at the 
PSU.  The applicant has not submitted anything to the Board to show that he was able to pass the 
running portion of the test between May 2006 and his retirement on March 1, 2007. 
 

Under Chapter 4.A.2. of the RPM, satisfactory participation in one’s Reserve unit 
is defined to include meeting the required level of physical fitness, and a reservist’s failure to 
meet his unit’s physical fitness standard constitutes unsatisfactory participation.  Under Article 
4.B.2.b.  of  the  RPM,  reservists  whose  participation  has  been  unsatisfactory  are  normally 
transferred to the IRR, upon approval by the Personnel Command, if the unit command finds that 
“they  still  possess  the  potential  for  useful  service  if  mobilized.”    Otherwise,  they  may  be 
separated. 

The applicant alleged that the Coast Guard should have transferred him to another 
unit, but he has not shown that there was a SELRES billet open for him at another unit or that it 
was unjust for the Coast Guard to apply the rules for unsatisfactory performance to his situation.  
Under the rules, when he did not pass the physical fitness test, he could go into the IRR—assum-
ing the Coast Guard found that he possessed the potential for useful service if mobilized—or he 
could request retirement.  The record shows that he requested retirement and that his request was 
approved. 

The  applicant  alleged  that  he  submitted  his  request  for  retirement  in  lieu  of  a 
transfer  to  the  IRR  only  because  a YN3  told  him  that  if  he  went  into  the  IRR,  he  would  be 
quickly  discharged  with  an  other  than  honorable  (OTH)  or  general  discharge.4   The  applicant 
submitted  no  evidence  supporting  this  allegation  of  coercion.    Even  assuming  the YN3  made 
such a farfetched claim, the Board does not believe that someone with more than twenty years of 
military experience could accept such an absurd claim without investigating the matter further.  
Any inquiry would have revealed that the Coast Guard Reserve is not in the habit of awarding 
OTH or general discharges to retirement-eligible members simply because they cannot run fast 
enough.  The applicant has not overcome the presumption of regularity or proved that he was 
coerced into retirement. 

 
4. 

5. 

 
6. 

 
7. 

 

                                                 
4 The Board notes that the applicant’s allegations are somewhat inconsistent and one such inconsistency is that in his 
original application, he alleged that the YN3 told him he would receive an other than honorable (OTH) discharge, 
whereas  in  his  response  to  the  advisory  opinion,  he  alleged  that  the  YN3  told  him  he  would  receive  a  general 
discharge. 

8. 

The applicant asked the Board to procure his pay statements and statements from 
various members he mentioned to find evidence to corroborate his claims.  The Board does not 
conduct investigations.  Under 33 C.F.R. § 52.24(a), “It is the responsibility of the applicant to 
procure and submit with his or her application such evidence, including official records, as the 
applicant desires to present in support of his or her case.” 

The  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  his 
retirement from the Reserve was coerced, unjust, or erroneous.  Therefore, his request should be 
denied. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
9. 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES APPEAR ON NEXT PAGE]

 

The  application  of  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCGR, Retired,  for  correction  of 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

  

 
 Jeff M. Neurauter 

 

 

 
 Lynda K. Pilgrim 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

his military record is denied.