IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 November 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003150 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 reconsideration of his earlier request to correct his records to show appointment as an officer, promotion to lieutenant colonel, and receipt of back pay and allowances and/or damages of several million dollars. As new issues, he requests, in effect: * service credit from 9 September 1994 to present * award of the Army Good Conduct Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Soldier's Medal, and a second award of the National Defense Service Medal * a reenlistment contract for a period of 8 years * assignment to officer branch Adjutant General * attendance at Airborne School, Ranger School, and an unspecified senior officer school * duty assignment in Paris, France * new military identification card 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. It is too late to be reinstated on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). The only just action would be to grant him service credit from the date of his wrongful removal from the TDRL on 9 September 1994 to the date of his reinstatement on active duty. By granting him service credit, he is seeking recovery of lost wages and benefits. b. He should be compensated for periodic grade and pay increases to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He should be credited with all leave days accrued from 9 September 1994 to present. c. He also seeks to recover damages for incidentals in the amount of $2,500,000.00, compensatory damages in the amount of $2,950,000.00, damages by consequence of this occurrence in the amount of $1,500,000.00, and exemplary damages in the amount of $1,250.00.00. d. He was honorably discharged from the Army on 8 January 1993 under medical conditions and was placed on the TDRL. In May 1994, a medical evaluation board (MEB) found him unfit for military service. Without jurisdiction or authority, the physical evaluation board (PEB) recommended his removal from the TDRL and separation. The MEB recommended his retention on the TDRL until the following year so a reevaluation for fitness for duty could be determined. The MEB stated his condition was not stable. The PEB violated his due process rights and disregarded the MEB's findings. He was removed from the TDRL and subsequently separated from military service without legal authority. e. He does not have a copy of his associate's degree. He has 3 1/2 years of prior service as an enlisted member. If he is credited with service from 9 September 1994 to the present, he will have nearly 24 years of total time in service. f. If he had not been wrongfully separated from military service, he would have reenlisted in the Army. During his period of wrongful separation, he completed 3 years of college. Since he obtained an associate's degree, he would have qualified for admittance to the U.S. Army Green-to-Gold Program and he would have completed this program in 2000. As a result, he would have been appointed/commissioned to rank of captain for having prior service as an enlisted member. g. Based on his time in service, he would have qualified for appointment to the rank of lieutenant colonel. h. He plans to complete a 4-year bachelor's degree before the expiration of an 8-year service contract. 3. The applicant provides two college transcripts. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140004902 on 28 October 2014. 2. The applicant provided two college transcripts, dated 1995 and 1999. The transcripts are new evidence that will be considered by the Board. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 July 1989 and trained as a personnel administration specialist. He was advanced to specialist/pay grade E-4 on 1 November 1990. 4. In November 1992, an MEB diagnosed him with: * acute, mild schizophreniform disorder with good prognostic features manifested by prominent auditory hallucinations, ideas of reference, and inappropriate affect * left-sided varicocele * psychosocial stressors * highest level of adaptive functioning in the past year rating of 75, current rating of 60 5. The MEB recommended his referral to a PEB. On 2 March 2004, he concurred with the MEB's findings and recommendation. 6. In December 1992, a PEB found him physically unfit due to schizophreniform disorder. The PEB recommended a 30-percent disability rating and placement on the TDRL. On 11 December 1992, he concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived a formal hearing of his case. 7. On 8 January 1993, he retired by reason of temporary disability and was placed on the TDRL effective 9 January 1993. 8. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was awarded or authorized the: * Army Service Ribbon * National Defense Service Medal * Army Achievement Medal * Overseas Service Ribbon * Army Good Conduct Medal * Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle and Grenade Bars 9. Since his DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal, this portion of his request will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings. 10. In August 1994, an informal PEB reevaluated the applicant's unfitting condition and assigned a rating of 10 percent. The PEB recommended his separation with disability severance pay. The applicant concurred with the PEB's finding and recommendation on 22 August 1994. 11. He was removed from the TDRL on 9 September 1994 with a 10-percent disability rating with severance pay. 12. There is no evidence showing the applicant was appointed as an officer or met the qualifications for appointment as an officer. 13. There is no evidence showing he performed any active duty service between 9 September 1994 and the present. 14. There are no orders for award of the Distinguished Service Medal, Soldier's Medal, or Meritorious Service Medal in the applicant's records. 15. There is no evidence showing he served a qualifying period for a second award of the National Defense Service Medal. 16. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. The Distinguished Service Medal is awarded to any person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, has distinguished himself or herself by exceptionally meritorious service to the government in a duty of great responsibility. The performance must be such as to merit recognition for service which is clearly exceptional. Exceptional performance of normal duty will not alone justify an award of this decoration. For service not related to actual war, the term "duty of great responsibility" applies to a narrower range of positions than in time of war and requires evidence of conspicuously significant achievement. However, justification of the award may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of high positions of great importance. 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. c. The Meritorious Service Medal is awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of a friendly foreign nation who distinguish themselves by outstanding meritorious achievement or service. After 16 January 1969 but prior to 11 September 2001, the Meritorious Service Medal was authorized to be awarded only for meritorious service or achievement while serving in a non-combat area. As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required. d. The National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a date to be determined. Second and subsequent awards of the National Defense Service Medal are denoted by a bronze service star affixed to the National Defense Service Medal. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends he should be granted service credit from 9 September 1994 to present and compensation because he was wrongfully removed from the TDRL on 9 September 1994. 2. He also seeks a reenlistment contract for a period of 8 years; assignment to officer branch Adjutant General; attendance at Airborne School, Ranger School, and an unspecified senior officer school; a duty assignment in Paris, France; and a new military identification card. 3. The evidence confirms: a. He retired by reason of temporary disability on 8 January 1993 and he was placed on the TDRL effective 9 January 1993. b. An informal PEB rated his disability at 10 percent in August 1994 and recommended his separation with disability severance pay. c. He was removed from the TDRL on 9 September 1994 and separated with a 10-percent disability rating with severance pay. 4. There is no evidence and he provided no evidence showing he was wrongly removed from the TDRL on 9 September 1994. He concurred with the PEB's finding and recommendation on 22 August 1994. 5. There is no evidence showing he performed any active duty service after 9 September 1994. As such, the evidence is insufficient to grant him: * service credit from 9 September 1994 to the present * back pay and allowances * reenlistment contract * attendance at Airborne School, Ranger School, or Senior Officer School * duty assignment in Paris, France * new military identification card 6. His requests for appointment as an officer, promotion to lieutenant colonel, and assignment to the Adjutant General Corps, were carefully considered. However, there is no evidence and he provided no evidence showing he met the qualifications for appointment as an officer in the Adjutant General Corps or promotion to lieutenant colonel. 7. There is no evidence and he provided no evidence showing he met the qualifications for attendance at Airborne School, Ranger School, or senior-level officer training. 8. There are no orders for award of the Distinguished Service Medal, Soldier's Medal, or Meritorious Service Medal in the applicant's records. 9. There is no evidence showing he served a qualifying period for a second award of the National Defense Service Medal. 10. There is no evidence to support the existence of a probable error or injustice and no basis for payment of damages in any amount. He is not entitled to reinstatement in the Regular Army and issuance of a military identification card. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ____X____ ____X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140004902, dated 28 October 2014. 2. With regard to the applicant's new requests for service credit from 9 September 1994 to the present; award of the Distinguished Service Medal, Soldier's Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, and a second award of the National Defense Service Medal; a reenlistment contract for a period of 8 years; assignment to officer branch of Adjutant General; attendance at Airborne School, Ranger School, and an unspecified senior officer school; duty assignment in Paris, France; and issuance of a new military identification card, the Board determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. _____________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) AR20150003150 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150003150 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1