IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010692 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 (as modified in her advisory opinion response, dated 28 November 2015) of her earlier request for correction of the record of her deceased spouse, a former service member (FSM), to show he completed 20 creditable years of service for retired pay purposes. Specifically, she requests to: * add 8 days of active duty training (ADT) for the period 21-28 May 1970 * add 18 ADT points for the period 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985 * subtract 17 ADT points for the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 * add 17 ADT points for the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990 * restoration of the FSM’s rank/pay grade to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 * issuance of a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay (20-Year Letter) * assign the FSM to U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Retired list as directed in his original orders * to receive any and all other relief she may be entitled to as a result of these corrections 2. In the alternative, she requests that the Board make a finding of “substantial compliance” or allow the National Guard Bureau (NGB) a specified amount of time to submit pay records or produce some kind of evidence that disproves her and/or a hearing on this matter be set, or make other orders within the sound discretion and authority of this Board. 3. The applicant states, in effect, that there is clear and convincing evidence to conclude that the FSM’s retirement points history statement contains mistakes and these mistakes should be corrected. 4. The applicant provides numerous documents, several of which she has identified as lettered exhibits: * Exhibit A-Ohio ARNG (OHARNG) Enlistment Agreement * Exhibit B-OH State Active Duty Pay Voucher * Exhibit C-OHARNG W2 (Wage and Tax Statement-1970) * Exhibit D-OHARNG Retirement Credits Record, effective 1 January 1990 * Exhibit E/L- NGB Form 23A (ARNG Current Annual Statement), prepared 17 July 2013 * Exhibit F-Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) memorandum, dated 10 September 2015 * Exhibit G1-Leave and Earning Statement (LES), ending 30 November 1989 * Exhibit G2-Social Security Annual Earnings Statement * Exhibit H1-Army Achievement Medal Certificate, dated 19 March 1989 * Exhibit H2-Certificate of Recognition, dated 19 March 1989 * Exhibit J- LES, ending 31 May 1984 * Exhibit K-NGB 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), effective 18 May 1992 * Exhibit M-LES, ending 29 February 1992 * Exhibit N-LES, ending 31 March 1992 * Exhibit P-LES ending 30 April 1992 * Exhibit Q-Kentucky ARNG (KYARNG) Orders 6-1 * Exhibit R-DA Form 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period November 1990 through October 1991 * Extensive audit (handwritten by D--- O---) * LES’s for the period 1 January 1982-31 May 1992 * Social Security Annual Earnings Statements for the years 1970-1992 * Section VII (Current and Previous Assignments) of DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) 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 AR20120017857 on 18 June 2013. 2. The original Record of Proceedings indicated that the available evidence did not sufficiently show that the FSM attained a minimum of 50 creditable points per year for 20 years or that he ever attained eligibility for transfer to the Retired Reserve for a non-Regular retirement. 3. The applicant submitted military and government financial records, military orders, and award certificates which were not previously considered by the ABCMR. Therefore, this is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board. 4. The FSM enlisted in the OHARNG on 19 May 1970 at approximately 17 years of age. His record contains a DD Form 373 (U.S. Armed Forces-Consent, Declaration of Parent or Legal Guardian) dated the same day and bearing the signatures of his parents/legal guardians giving their consent to his enlistment in the service for a period of 6 years. He later served in the KYARNG. 5. Item 18 of his DA Form 2-1 shows his date of rank (DOR) to SGT/E-5 as 1 March 1975 and his DOR to SSG/E-6 as 1 April 1978. 6. The circumstances surrounding the applicant’s reduction are not present in the record; however, Orders 6-1, issued by Headquarters, 206th Engineer Battalion, KYARNG, dated 11 April 1992, reduced the FSM to sergeant (SGT)/ E-5 for inefficiency effective, 1 April 1992 in accordance with National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 6-44a(1). 7. The FSM’s record shows: a. On 18 July 1990, the KYARNG Retirement Point Accounting System (RPAS) NCO requested the FSM’s NGB Form 23 be corrected to show an Inactive National Guard (ING) period of service for the retirement year ending (RYE) 31 March 1982. b. As a result of this inquiry, the FSM was issued a new NGB Form 23A on 29 August 1990. This form shows the FSM had earned 1,481 total retirement points and he had completed 17 years of creditable service for retired pay with no unverified periods. From 19 May 1981 to 31 January 1982 he earned 19 points and from 1 February 1982 to 31 March 1982 he earned 0 points due to his assignment to the ING. This summary further shows that he failed to earn the required 50 qualifying retirement points during the following periods: * 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985 (32 points) * 1 April 1989 to 12 March 1990 (46 points) c. The FSM initialed both pages of this updated NGB Form 23A indicating that he had reviewed the document which included these statements: (1) This summary is a statement of your points earned towards retirement. You should review all entries and report any discrepancies to your unit clerk. Particular attention should be given to any period of service with a verification status (VS) of B, C or D because points are not credited until verified. (2) Based upon your current grade and pay scale, and assuming you earn a minimum of 75 points per year for the next 3 years, which will establish 20 years of creditable service, you could receive approximately $194.31 per month at age 60. Should you elect to remain in an active status in the ARNG until you reach age 60, and earn a minimum of 75 points per year, your retirement pay could become approximately $385.95 per month. 8. His NGB Form 22, effective 18 May 1992, shows in: * Item 10a (Net Service this Period) - 22 years * Item 10b (Prior Reserve Component Service) - none * Item 10c (Prior Active Federal Service) - none * Item 10d (Total service for Pay) - 22 years * Item 18 (Remarks) - Individual discharged and assigned to the USAR (Retired) * Item 23 (Authority and Reason) – NGR 600-200 Paragraph 8-26x: Expiration Term of Service (ETS) (No obligation) 9. The FSM was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 18 May 1992. 10. He died on 15 December 2011 at the age of 59. 11. On 11 August 2015, in connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was received from the Deputy Chief, Appeals and Analysis Section, Personnel Policy Division, NGB, recommending disapproval of the applicant’s request for reconsideration. The official provided the following discussion points: a. Retirement years are not calculated on a calendar year basis, the FSM’s retirement year ran from 1 April to 31 March each year. The pay evidence provided by the applicant shows compensation, speculated to be from summer camp, earned during a calendar year and is not specific as to when the compensation was earned during that year. b. Further investigation by the NGB Retirements Branch concluded that in calendar year 1990 the FSM served a portion of two different retirement years (1 April 1989 through 31 March 1990 and 1 April 1990 through 31 March 1991). The FSM’s retirement points record indicates that he had IDT and Annual Training retirement points issued in both of those periods. There is no way to determine in which retirement year the money for IDT and Annual Training was distributed. c. In order to change the retirement points statement, the applicant would need to provide military pay records from DFAS which indicate the day(s) on which paid duty was performed as well as the type of duty performed. Military pay records can be provided to the KYARNG Retirement Point Administrator for audit and possible inclusion in the FSM’s military retirement point statement. A telephone number for DFAS was provided. d. The State of Kentucky and the NGB Retirements Branch concurred with this recommendation. 12. On 9 September 2015, the applicant requested that the Board reject the advisory official’s recommendation for the following reasons: a. Given that the advisory official made several administrative errors in his response to include incorrectly listing a retirement period and providing wrong contact phone numbers for DFAS, it is just as probable that a clerk made a typographical error when entering points for the RYE 31 March 1985 (FSM’s IDT points should be 47 and not 17, totaling 63 points for retirement pay). b. The advisory official’s argument that the applicant cannot show exactly when the pay was received is not necessarily a valid argument. In her first request for reconsideration, she calculated based on IDT income received divided by the amount of income received for each weekend drill and found that the FSM attended at least 8.34 weekend drills (33 IDT points) in the calendar year 1991. Even if weekend drills for January, February, and March 1991 (three months multiplied by 4 points each = 12 points) were subtracted out to correspond with the retirement year the FSM would still have 21 IDT points for a total of 51 points. The other 12 points would then be included in the previous retirement year and so on. In this scenario, least favorable to the FSM, he would still have earned enough IDT points in 9 months to fulfill the retirement year and, therefore, would not have to show exactly when income was earned. c. She further contends that the FSM’s Retirement Points History Report shows 0 ADT points for the RYE 31 March 1990. However pages 5 and 6 from the Social Security Annual Earnings Statement clearly show DFAS reported regular wages for IDT of $2,153.17 and he received military active duty pay of $897.09 for the calendar year of 1989. The only AD pay that she is aware of is for summer camps. The summer of 1989 would be within April 1989 and March 1990. This clearly shows that 0 ADT points must be an error. Therefore, for the retirement year 1 April 1989 through 31 March 1990, the FSM’s record should reflect 16 ADT points for a total of 63 points. d. The applicant states that the advisory official treated her request with disregard and the recommendation was disheartening. She doubts that he has authority to speak for the State of Kentucky and questions who he is actually speaking for in his opinion. But more importantly is the fact the advisory official recommends that she just be “DISMISSED” without providing any proof to contradict the evidence that was provided to the Board and supports her request for correction of the record. Although the Social Security earnings statements are not perfect it is the best evidence thus far. If the NGB cannot produce its own pay records, how can she be expected to produce their pay records? She suggests that perhaps military pay records from the 1970’s and 1980’s don’t exist and the sparse few other military records that have been provided to her have many mistakes that she has not even mentioned. The advisory official was not careful in the writing of his opinion, made other inaccurate statements therein, made no claim of any inquiries into this matter, and did not even offer to provide the pay records he claims are available. e. On the other hand, she has provided reliable information to this Board that tends to show there are mistakes on the Retirement Points History Statement. It is estimated that the FSM would have been entitled to about $389.00 per month in retirement pay at age 60. She submits that the FSM earned his retired pay and it should be paid. Even without corrections, he had 18 so called “Good Years.” Under any circumstance he should be considered “vested” in the pension plan and be entitled to at least a lump sum distribution, assuming the NGB can produce an accounting of FSM’s accrued benefits up through his discharge date. 13. On 1 October 2015, the ABCMR requested the Deputy Chief, Appeals and Analysis Section, Personnel Policy Division, NGB, conduct a second review of the applicant’s request based on numerous LES’s provide by DFAS to the applicant. 14. On 22 October 2015, the advisory official stated that the LES’s were reviewed and they did not provide any additional retirement points but did confirm the retirement points already captured on the FSM’s Retirement Points History Statement. Based on the findings there was no basis to revise the recommendation provided in the original opinion, dated 11 August 2015. 15. On 28 November 2015, the applicant provided a rebuttal wherein she argued: a. The Retirement Points History Statement on file was incomplete, inaccurate, and should not be relied upon. b. The FSM was only 17 when he enlisted and he did so without permission from his parents. She submits a pay voucher which shows two days after his enlistment, on 21 May 1970, he was ordered to active duty and sent to Ohio State University for 8 days to combat civil unrest without the benefit of training. She further contends that the FSM’s training did not begin until September 1970 and to send him into active duty, presumably with weapons locked and loaded, WITH NO TRAINING, to a college campus near Kent State where Ohio Guardsmen had shot and killed and injured students two weeks prior, was unconscionable. Although the year RYE 18 May 1971 is considered a good year, she requests this year be corrected to include these 8 days of active duty and hereby gives notice that she reserves any rights for damages that may be sought at a later date for this act. (Exhibits A, B, C, and D) c. The DFAS pay records provided for the period 1982 to 1992 show the FSM’s monthly drills and appear to include footnotes regarding active duty pay for summer camp or other duty. Of note is that these were all the records they were able to retrieve. (LES’s attached) d. Regarding her previous request for reconsideration, she reiterates the Retirement Points History Statement shows 0 ADT points for the year 1 April 1989 through 31 March 1990; however, pages 5 and 6 of the Social Security Annual Earnings report clearly shows DFAS reported calendar year regular wages for IDT and ADT totaling $3,050.26 for calendar year 1989. New information from end of year pay records for 1989 matches these exact dollar amounts and confirms her statement that the FSM did attend summer camp in 1989. However, she did not recall that summer camp was in March that year and therefore was included in the previous retirement year's points. In effect, two summer camps performed in two different calendar years (1988 and 1989) were counted in one retirement year. She contends the FSM should have 17 ADT points subtracted from retirement year “1988 – 1989” and added to retirement year “1989 – 1990.” As the original enlistment agreement only required 15 field training days “per year,” not per retirement year, the applicant contends the field training duty requirement for 1989 was met. She contends the FSM performed this summer camp in Honduras and she provides his Army Achievement Medal and Certificate of Recognition as evidence. (Exhibits G1, G2, H, H2, and J) e. For the RYE 31 March 1985, the applicant amends her original contention which was not supported by DFAS records and she submits a DFAS LES for the period 1-31 May 1984. She argues the LES indicated “no drill” but has a footnote indicating a June Voucher with gross pay of $644.70 for active duty pay. Therefore, the Retirement Point History Statement, which currently shows 0 ADT points, is in error. She further contends that 18 ADT points should be added to RYE 31 March 1985, giving him 50 points for this year. It is noted that this form reflects a no pay due at the end of the month and shows $644.70 is recorded as “FICA WAGES YEAR TO DATE.” (Exhibit J) f. Her previous request for correction based on calculating points for pay received was not supported by DFAS pay records for RYE March 1991. g. The FSM had two RYEs where he did not receive 50 retirement points, lacking 10 points in one year and 3 points in another. It would not be out of the ordinary to find that a Soldier had “substantially complied” given the circumstances in this case. h. The FSM’s original enlistment contract makes no mention of the Soldier’s requirement to earn “points” at all. It required a certain number of drills and a certain number of field training days per year. Further, there is no reference to a so called “retirement year” to qualify for retirement benefits. It speaks of consequences for not completing the requirements of additional AD but NOWHERE DOES IT MENTION A POINTS SYSTEM OR A LOSS OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS for not completing the required number of drill and field training days. i. The order of discharge assigned the FSM to the Retired Reserve and upon receiving this order by mail he believed that he had completed his years of service and thought no more about it. Neither the applicant nor the FSM had reason to question the retirement status as it was in a written order. This order was not carried out by the unit commander. (The record is void of a discharge order but does contain the NGB Form 22 previously discussed.) (Exhibit K). j. The ARNG Current Annual Statement, dated 17 July 2013, incorrectly shows the highest grade held as E5. The FSM was a SSG/E6 for over 13 years but (she contends, unduly) his pay grade is listed as E5 at discharge. (Exhibit L) k. On the issue of the FSM’s rank, the applicant believes there was some highly questionable conduct on the part of the Maysville, KY unit. The FSM earned the rank of E6 in 1978 and maintained that rank until the month before his separation on 18 May 1992. The reason given for demotion was inefficiency. The pay records provided show that the FSM did not attend drills for several months in a row prior to separation. It is presumed that there must have been some type of due process afforded to the FSM before demoting a long standing SSG less than 30 days before he was due to separate. Even the reduction order mistakenly cited the date of SSG as 1 March 1975 when in fact he earned this rank in 1978. (Exhibits Q and R) l. The FSM’s received a performance evaluation in November 1991 which states he led by example; however, he was demoted for efficiency in April 1992. The applicant contends that the FSM’s commander demoted him out of spite and in violation of appropriate rule of law and procedure. She reserves the right to seek damages in the future for this violation. 16. The applicant’s evidence has been noted in the paragraphs above. 17. Army Regulation 135-91 (Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures) states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when he or she accrues nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1 year period. 18. Army National Guard Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, stated: a. in paragraph 8-26x, that a Soldier who reached his or her ETS would be discharged from the ARNG. b. that commanders may reduce Soldiers for inefficiency. Inefficiency was defined not only as technical incompetence, but also as patterns or acts of conduct demonstrating that the Solder concerned lacked the ability and qualities required and expected of a Solder of his or her rank and experience. Commanders could consider any act(s) of misconduct to include conviction by a civil court, record of unexcused absences or unsatisfactory participation (whether or not such acts also resulted in disciplinary action) as evidence of inefficiency. A Soldier who assigned to a unit for at least 3 months could be reduced one rank for inefficiency. The commander initiating the reduction action would present documents to the reduction authority showing the Soldier’s inefficiency. c. the commander reducing the Soldier would inform the Soldier in writing, delivered in person or dispatched by certified mail, of the action contemplated and reasons. The Solder would acknowledge receipt of the memorandum in writing, and could submit any pertinent matters in rebuttal. Mail refused, unclaimed, not acknowledged, or otherwise undeliverable, was not used as defense against, or as a basis for an appeal of reduction, when notification was correctly addressed to the latest official mail address furnished to the unit by the member. The commander’s written notification included instructions advising the Soldier of his or her right to request a reduction board. The complete reduction action, including any appeal, was filed as a permanent document in the Soldier’s military records. 19. Army Regulation 135-180 (ARNG and Army Reserve – Qualifying Service for Retired Pay Nonregular Service) implements statutory authorities governing granting retired pay to Soldiers and former Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers. Paragraph 2-8 describes qualifying service as service performed in an active status in a RC or in active Federal service. After 30 June 1949, a Reserve Soldier must earn a minimum of 50 retirement points each retirement year to receive credit for a qualifying year. 20. National Guard Regulation 680-2 (Automated Retirement Points Accounting System) prescribes procedures for recording retirement points and years of credible service for non-Regular retirement. The regulation states: a. retirement points for active duty (AD), active duty special work (ADSW), active duty training (ADT) and full time training duty (FTTD) may be awarded from the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) or the DD Form 220 (Active Duty Report). b. Soldiers must earn a minimum of 50 points from all sources in a retirement year to have that year creditable towards verification of 20 years of qualifying service for retired pay. All retirement points will be entered in the RPAS record, whether the period is creditable or not. 21. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 12731 (10USC12731) provides that a non-regular service member is entitled, upon application, to retired pay if the person is at least 60 years of age and has performed at least 20 years of qualifying service. 22. 10 USC 12731(d), states that the Secretary concerned shall notify each person who has completed the years of service required for eligibility for retired pay. The notice shall be sent, in writing, to the person concerned within 1 year after the person completes that service. Section 12738(a) states that after a person is notified that he or she has completed the years of service required for eligibility for retired pay, the person's eligibility for retired pay may not be denied or revoked on the basis of any error, miscalculation, misinformation, or administrative determination of years of service unless it resulted directly from the fraud or misrepresentation of the person. The applicable statutes contain no provisions for "substantial compliance" with regard to eligibility for non-Regular retired pay. 23. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, the FSM’s pay grade be restored to SSG and his retirement points history show he completed 20 years of qualifying service towards retirement. 2. The evidence of record shows the FSM’s record contains the appropriate parental consent. The evidence shows his enlistment was properly executed. 3. Regarding including the 8 days of ADT the FSM performed combating civil unrest at Kent State University during May 1970, the record shows the FSM was credited with 138 ADT retirement points for the RYE 1971 for the period 30 September 1970 to 14 February 1971. The Retirement Credits Record, provided by the applicant does not show that the applicant was credited with any AD retirement points during May 1970; therefore, the ARNG should correct the FSM’s retirement points to include the 8 days in question or provide the applicant with a valid reason as to why the FSM did not accumulate retirement points during this period. 4. Regarding adding 18 ADT points for the period 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985, the applicant provided the FSM’s LES for the period covering 1-31 May 1984. She contends the entries in the Remarks Section show the FSM received wages of $644.70 for a June 1984 voucher with no drill performance; therefore, the wages must be for ADT. A review of this LES shows that the dollar amount shown in the Remarks Section is also shown as “FICA wages year to date” and there was “No Pay Due” to the FSM. It appears this entry is an accounting note showing earnings for the calendar year as of 31 May 1984 and not an indicator of ADT performed in during May 1984, which would be consistent with no wages being paid. 5. With regard to subtracting 17 ADT points for the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 and adding 17 ADT points for the period 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, the applicant contends that DFAS pay records, Social Security Earnings, and the FSM’s AAM, show the FSM performed two Summer Camps during the RYE 31 March 1989, which is not supported by the evidence. The evidence confirms that the FSM earned wages for IDT and ADT for the calendar year 1989. However, the AAM the FSM was awarded for his service in Honduras for the period 3- 9 March 1989 coincides with and would be recorded in RYE 31 March 1989, which currently shows 35 ADT points which may include these 17 days. The available evidence is insufficient to support adding the 17 days to the 35 ADT points already shown. 4. The applicant requests that all substantial compliance standard be applied because the applicant was not aware of a retirement point requirement and he received orders that placed him in the USAR Retired Reserve. The evidence of record shows that the FSM verified his ARNG Current Annual Statement, dated 29 August 1990 and in doing so acknowledged that he must complete 75 retirement points per year for the next 3 years in order to obtain 20 qualifying years. 5. The FSM’s discharge orders are not available; however, his NGB 22 clearly contains an error in the Remarks Section transferring the applicant to the USAR Retired Reserve. However, this form cites the appropriate regulatory authority and reason for discharge as “ETS.” Further, he was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 6. It is unfortunate that all the FSM’s records are not available but the preponderance of the evidence shows that he was aware, prior to his discharge, that he had not completed 20 qualifying years toward retirement, as shown by his initials on the ARNG Current Annual Statement, and did not identify any errors in the calculations as presented to him. The evidence presented by the applicant was very helpful but unfortunately his finance records, without his training records, are almost impossible to reconcile. Again, the FSM bore some responsibility to ensure the timely and accurate accounting of his retirement points. 7. In regard to his reduction from SSG to SGT due to inefficiency, the fact that he received laudatory comments on his evaluations is not in question; however, by the applicant’s own admission, the FSM missed several drills during his last year of service. As such, these unexcused absences may have been considered a valid reason for reduction for inefficiency per regulatory guidance. 8. As stated in 10USC12731, to qualify for a non-regular retirement and retired pay at 60, a person must have performed at least 20 years of qualifying service. Therefore, it should also be noted that if such evidence existed that would show the FSM did in fact complete 20 years of qualifying service for retirement pay, because he died prior to reaching age 60, he would not have received such pay. 9. The applicant has also asked that the NGB be required to present records that disputes the evidence she has presented; however, notwithstanding the two audits performed by the NGB, this Board’s review of the evidence did not find any apparent error. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ____X___ ____X___ ____X___ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120017857, dated 18 June 2013. 2. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief based on the applicant’s amended request. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army and Army National Guard records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the appropriate number of retirement points for the 8-day active duty period listed on the FSM’s State Active Duty Pay Voucher, provided this information is found to be accurate. However, if it is not possible to make this correction, the ARNG should provide this Board and the applicant a written explanation of the circumstances preventing the correction. 3. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to restoring the FSM’s rank to SSG and correcting the record to show the FSM completed 20 qualifying years of service for retired pay. ____________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) AR20140010692 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140010692 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1