BOARD DATE: 6 March 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170007443 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF __x______ __x______ ___x__ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 6 March 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170007443 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. issuing separation orders showing: * his date of separation as 20 December 2003 * he returned to his home of record identified on his DD Form 1966 * separation authority AR 635-200, Chapter 4 * reason for separation – expiration of term of service * his rank at time of separation as private/pay grade E-1 * Soldier is authorized reimbursement for travel expenses from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to his home of record based on the rates established by the Government Travel Regulation b. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) for service from 15 August 2000 to 14 August 2003. c. amending his DD Form 214 as follows: (1) add to item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – * Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award) * National Defense Service Medal * Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Army Service Ribbon * Valorous Unit Award (2) add to item 14 (Military Education) ? Basic Airborne Course, 3 weeks, 2000. (3) delete from item 18 (Remarks) ? "Service in Kuwait 20030215 - 20030916" and add "Service in Kuwait/Iraq 20030215 – 20030916." d. paying him travel expenses and allowances to his home of record under the criteria in the Joint Travel Regulation. e. paying him his accrued leave balance as shown on his 30 December 2003 LES in accordance with the rules in effect at the time and amending the applicable block on his DD Form 214 to show the number of days of accrued leave paid. 2. The Board further determined 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 showing he was in an active duty status after 20 December 2003 or affording him any pay and allowances beyond that date. ___________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. BOARD DATE: 6 March 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170007443 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 issuance of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) showing an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he returned home from Operation Iraqi Freedom before the rest of the unit (due to his pending expiration of term of service (ETS) date). At that time out-processing was handled by the rear detachment. Appointments were mismanaged and his term of service ran out before he completed the proper clearing process at Fort Bragg. His record appears to be missing documents that he has attempted to obtain. Troops returning early from Iraq were treated poorly by rear detachment personnel. 3. The applicant provides – * Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Office of the Inspector General (IG) letter dated 30 January 2017 * Emails between the applicant and the HRC Assistant IG with enclosures totaling approximately 117 pages COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests the applicant be honorably discharged from the Army with an effective date corresponding to the Board’s decision and entitlement to full pay and benefits as he was involuntarily retained in service. He also requests the applicant be issued discharge orders and a DD Form 214 corresponding to the date of this Board's decision. 2. Counsel states: a. The applicant was not issued discharge documents nor did he receive a DD Form 214 upon his ETS. He admits he made a mistake by using marijuana at Fort Bragg, but not receiving an honorable discharge is unjust. On 30 October 2003, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for using marijuana. His punishment included restriction and extra duty for 45 days, and because of this he was unable to complete proper out-processing. When he informed his rear detachment commander of his situation, he was told he would not get paid, he could not get an identification card (ID), he must immediately vacate the barracks, and he was not allowed on post. He had no choice but to return to his home in Texas. b. All attempts since then have been futile. The applicant was never discharged from the Army. He has constructively remained on active duty. The Army Review Boards Agency's Case Management Division in 2012 mistook his request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) as a request for a copy of his DD Form 214. HRC refused to issue him a DD Form 214 when their own IG requested they do so due to a lack of documents in his official military personnel file (OMPF) that would assist them in characterizing his service. The IG referred the applicant to this Board. c. As he was not allowed to complete out-processing he did not get his final pay and allowances for traveling home. He had to move himself at his own expense. d. As he did not receive a DD Form 214 as required by law, he has not been able to obtain veterans benefits and health care. e. The applicant was never discharged from the Army, thus he was involuntarily retained in an active duty status because government officials refused to process his discharge. Counsel asserts, "No member of the armed forces may be 'discharged or released from active duty until his discharge certificate or certificate of release from active duty, respectively, and his final pay or a substantial part of that pay, are ready for delivery to him or his next of kin or legal representative.' [Title] 10, U.S. [Code], [Section 1168]." Therefore, the applicant was constructively retained on active duty since December 2003, which is a breach of his enlistment contract. Thus he is authorized payment of all wages, to include housing and "substance" (sic) allowance, to the date of the Board's decision. He provides case law to support his position. 3. Counsel provides – * DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the U.S) * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document) * USAREC Form 1127 (Statement for Enlistment – Army Policy) * DA Form 3286-64 (Station/Unit/Command/Area Enlistment Program) * National Agency Check (NAC) application for security clearance * 3rd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, memorandum, dated 1 September 2003 * Task Force Falcon Permanent Orders 127-65 * 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, AFVC-B, Memorandum for Record, dated 1 September 2003 * second 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, AFVC-BC, Memorandum for Record, dated 1 September 2003 * third 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, AFVC-BC, Memorandum for Record on Area of Responsibility, dated 1 September 2003 * 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, AFVC-BC, Memorandum for Record of Transportation Manifest, dated 1 September 2003 * DA Form 4833 (Commander's Report of Disciplinary Action, dated 22 December 2003 * DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15 UCMJ), dated 30 October 2003 * Criminal Investigation Command (CID) memorandum, dated 4 November 2003 * DD Form 2796 (Post-Deployment Health Assessment) * DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) with attached citation, dated 30 April 2003 (Permanent Order 127-128 awarding Army Commendation Medal (ARCOM)) * DA Form 4960 (ARCOM Certificate) * 82nd Airborne Division Honor Guard Certificate * 82nd Airborne Division letter, dated 19 September 2003 * 325th Airborne Infantry, Memorandum for Record, emailed by Legal Office, 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division on 30 January 2004 * National Personnel Record Center (NPRC), dated 5 July 2011 * Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) letter, dated 28 December 2012, with attached Leave and Earning Statements (LESs) * Standard Form 180 (Request for Records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)), dated 3 January 2013 * Standard Form 180, dated 23 January 2015 * NPRC letter, dated 5 February 2015 * Department of Veterans Affairs letter, dated 19 February 2015 * Standard Form 180, dated 1 July 2015 * Department of the Army (DA) letter, dated 21 April 2016 * Congressional correspondence, dated 26 April 2016 * Standard Form 180, dated 29 April 2016 * Department of Defense Manpower Data Center Status Report * Defense Manpower Data Report (REDD) * HRC letter, dated 4 October 2016 * CID memorandum for the HRC IG, dated 15 December 2016 * Office of the Inspector General (IG) letter, dated 30 January 2017 * excerpts of Army Regulation (AR) 635-8 (Separation Processing and Documents) * excerpts AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) * monograph titled "Army 2020 Generating Health and Discipline in the Force Ahead" (approximately 196 pages) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant and a government official completed a DD Form 4 showing the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) in the delayed entry program on 28 July 2000. He enlisted in grade E-1. Entry in the delayed entry program was in a non-pay status. On this date his statutory military service obligation was established. The statutory military service obligation is 8 years, thus his removal date from all rolls of the Army was to be 27 July 2008. 3. His DD Form 4 further shows on 15 August 2000, he was discharged from the USAR and entered the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 for a period of 3 years. This enlistment date established his ETS date as 14 August 2003. (His ETS date is confirmed by DFAS as shown in his 30 August 2000 LES.) He was initially guaranteed infantry and airborne training and assignment to the 82nd Airborne Division. 4. The documents submitted by counsel in support of the applicant include: a. A letter dated 30 January 2017, wherein the HRC Assistant IG responded to the applicant's request for assistance. The Assistant IG stated, in pertinent part, that the Fort Bragg Installation Transition Center was responsible for preparing his DD Form 214 and ETS orders and filing them in his OMPF whether or not he was present at the time. Fort Bragg personnel failed to do this. b. A DA Form 638 showing on 30 April 2003, the applicant was recommended by his platoon leader for the ARCOM with "V" Device for combat actions in Iraq on 31 March and 1 April 2003. The regimental commander downgraded the award to an ARCOM. Permanent Orders 127-128 awarded the applicant an ARCOM on 7 May 2003. c. Permanent Orders Number 127-55 dated 7 May 2003 awarded the applicant the Combat Infantryman Badge for combat service from 24 March to 28 April 2003. d. A 3rd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division, memorandum for record shows the applicant served in the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom from 14 February to 1 September 2003. He was authorized to wear the shoulder sleeve insignia for former wartime service and overseas service bars on his uniforms. e. A memorandum shows the applicant's regimental commander authorized his released from CENTCOM to his home station on 13 September 2003 in order for the applicant to ETS on 20 December 2003. f. Permanent Orders 280-02 awarded the applicant the Army Achievement Medal for service from 9 September to 12 September 2002. g. A DD Form 2796 (Post Deployment) shows the applicant completed screening on 3 September 2003 prior to departing CENTCOM with no health, financial/pay, or administrative problems. h. A DA Form 2627 shows the applicant received NJP on 30 October 2003 for absenting himself from his unit on or about 16 to 17 October 2003. He was reduced to pay grade E-1, directed to perform extra duty for 45 days, and restricted for 45 days. i. An incomplete DD Form 4833 dated 12 December 2003 shows in – * block 11a (Offense(s)) ? use of marijuana * block 11b (Date of Offense(s)) – 15 October and 1 November 2003 * block 12c (Action Taken – NJP) – he received a field grade NJP * block 14l (Resultant Sentences, Punishments, Administrative Actions) shows he was to be administratively discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c (misconduct – drug abuse) j. LESs provided by counsel cover pay periods from August 2000 through December 2003. Throughout most of his period of active duty service his ETS was shown as 15 August 2003. His LES for March 2003 shows his ETS date changed to "24 December 2024" (a placeholder for Soldiers deploying). On his 30 June 2003 LES, his ETS date was adjusted to 20 December 2003. (1) His LES for the period ending 30 November 2003 shows his pay grade as E-4 and shows he had no dependents. Further instructions stated, "All pay and allowances will be suspended upon your ETS date of 031220 [20 December 2003]." He had a tax exempt leave balance of 20 days and a total leave balance of 54 days. (2) His LES for the period ending 31 December 2003 shows his ETS date as 20 December 2003 and shows he was reduced to grade E-2 on 14 September 2003. It appears that based on his grade reduction he incurred a debt to the government for overpayment of pay and allowances. His total leave balance at his ETS was 54 days with 20 days in a tax exempt status. (3) A review of the LESs provided by counsel shows no final LES due to out-processing the installation, no payment of accrued leave, and no payment of transportation costs associated with his return to Texas. k. Through a series of emails, the HRC Assistant IG determined the applicant was not properly separated prior to his ETS date and no administrative separation packet was found. On 4 October 2016 by email, the HRC Assistant IG directly asked the applicant for copies of his separation orders. The applicant responded directly to her email citing current Army regulations. He never acknowledged her question. When the Assistant IG asked him for his personal copy of his enlistment extension document, he was not able to produce it. l. In an email communication dated 18 January 2017 concerning his characterization of service, the applicant informed the Assistant IG, "I remember it was a general under honorable. It was on the [A]rticle 15. I had to request a copy of it… [for civilian employment] …maybe I could call and see if it is still on file." 5. On 14 June 2017, HRC issued a DD Form 214 showing the applicant entered active duty on 15 August 2003 and was released on 20 December 2003 due to completion of required active service. His character of service is shown as honorable. His authorized awards are the Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Parachutist Badge. Item 18 (Remarks) shows the applicant served in Kuwait from 15 February 2003 to 16 September 2003. Further instructions state this DD Form 214 was issued based on a "temporary record and Soldier's affidavit." A government official signed the form. The applicant was not available to sign this document (due to circumstances identified throughout this Record of Proceedings). 6. The applicant and counsel received the DD Form 214. Counsel immediately submitted a supplemental brief. He restated that the applicant's involuntary retention on active duty (beyond his ETS date) or constructive service must be addressed. He also pointed out the applicant’s DD Form 214 did not include all his awards, did not show his service in Iraq, and showed he was separated on a temporary record. He states, "Since [the applicant] has been unable to obtain his Official Military Personal Record, despite numerous requests, he is unable to properly address these issues in detail. Therefore, it is asked that the Board request [the applicant's] complete military personal file and order the correction of his DD Form 214 based upon this record." 7. In the supplemental brief, counsel argues the applicant's proper date of discharge is 14 June 2017; therefore, pay and benefits are due for the period 20 December 2003 to 14 June 2017 (the date the DD Form 214 was issued). He argues the applicant constructively remains on active duty until his final pay and discharge orders are properly issued. a. HRC contacted counsel on 15 June 2017; admitted that no DD Form 214, discharge orders, or final payment had been issued; and administratively issued the applicant a DD Form 214. Counsel considers the issues of characterization of service and issuance of a DD Form 214 to be satisfied and requests voluntary dismissal of these two requests. b. No separation orders, final accounting for pay, reimbursement of unused leave, or travel orders to the applicant's home of record were issued. Therefore, counsel argues the applicant "has constructively remained on active duty and is accordingly due full pay and benefits for this period." c. Counsel submits a redacted copy of ABCMR Docket Number AR20100009453, dated 3 August 2010, as new evidence. (1) This case concerns a lengthy delay in preparing a retiring officer's DD Form 214, which resulted in a debt to the government. Her retirement orders were issued with an effective date of 1 September 2007. During her retirement physical she was diagnosed with cancer and her retirement orders were extended 90 days to 30 November 2007 with an effective date of retirement of 1 December 2007. (2) By regulation, a DD Form 214 is not identified as a prerequisite for an approved retirement with issuance of retirement orders to take effect. In summary, the approved order takes effect whether or not other separation documents are prepared. Her chain of command initiated an investigation which determined she failed to follow retirement and out-processing procedures that directly contributed to her receiving full active duty pay and allowances after her date of retirement. The HRC Surgeon General reviewed her medical record and found no reason for her to be retained on active duty beyond her retirement date. (3) She claimed to have been on active duty because she had not received a DD Form 214. Her argument was rejected by the Board because she knew she had a retirement order and that the order had not been extended (a second time), thus any money she received after the effective date of her retirement based on her orders was unauthorized. d. Counsel argues government officials refused to discharge the applicant thus denying him access to veterans benefits (e.g., health care, disability compensation, and education). In the applicant’s quest to get his DD Form 214 it appears government officials were reluctant to issue it to him because his characterization of service could not be confirmed. The Department of Veterans Affairs "legally considered [the applicant] to be on active duty." Counsel then argues this is a basis to support his contention the applicant constructively remained on active duty until 14 June 2017. He argues, "The Army is obligated to compensate [the applicant] for the time he was involuntarily retained on active duty." He cites case law to support his contentions. (1) When a service member is illegally or improperly separated they are "deemed to have continued in active service until their legal separation… Such 'constructive service' is legal fiction and accordingly does not require the service member to have actually been present for service or performed duties." (2) When a discharge is held to be illegal or invalid, the service member is entitled to pay and benefits until a proper discharge is executed and it is irrelevant if the military had the ability to voluntarily discharge the service member. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-200, the regulation in effect at the time, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. a. Authority for separation (AR 635-200) will be included in directives or orders directing Soldiers to report to the appropriate transition point or transition activity for separation processing. Orders discharging Soldiers will be prepared in accordance with AR 600-8-105 (Military Orders). b. Chapter 4 pertains to Soldiers being separated upon expiration of enlistment or fulfillment of service obligation. The periods of military service required of all Soldiers will be in accordance with applicable laws. A Soldier enlisted or ordered to active duty normally will be discharged or released from active duty on the date he completes the period for which enlisted or ordered to active duty. Separations will be accomplished by the transition point per the separation orders issued by the appropriate commander. c. Paragraph 14-12c provides for the administrative discharge of a Soldier for commission of a serious offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. Abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct. There are mitigating circumstances for a single drug offense which may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct leading to administrative separation under chapter 14. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for discharges under chapter 14. 2. Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1168 (Discharge or release from active duty: limitations), subparagraph (a), states a member of an armed force may not be discharged or released from active duty until his discharge certificate or certificate of release from active duty, and his final pay or a substantial part of that pay, are ready for delivery to him or his next of kin or legal representative. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1169 (Regular enlisted member: limitations on discharge) states no regular enlisted member of an armed force may be discharged before his term of service expires, except as prescribed by the Secretary concerned, by sentence of a general or special court-martial, or as otherwise provided by law. 4. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time of the applicant’s service, provides line by line instructions for completing the DD Form 214. The instructions for item 14 (Military Education) state, in pertinent part, to list formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214 by showing the title, length in weeks, and year completed. This information is to assist the Soldier in job placement and counseling post service. 5. Training Circular 3-221.220 (Static Line Parachuting Techniques and Training) states the basic airborne course is a 3-week course divided into two training phases. 6. AR 310-10 (Military Orders) provides the policy and procedures for preparing and issuing orders for military personnel and units. Orders are required for certain travel, promotion, certain personnel actions, and separation. Authority to issue orders is vested in command. Therefore, commanders may issue orders based on the authority inherent in their positions, standing authority provided through regulations, or temporary authority delegated under certain circumstances. 7. AR 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military decorations, Army Good Conduct Medal, service medals and ribbons, combat and special skills badges and unit awards. a. The Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency, and fidelity. Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Army Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified. Any 3 year period of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940 qualifies for award. b. 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. c. The Iraq Campaign Medal is awarded to members who have served in direct support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). The area of eligibility encompasses all the land area of the country of Iraq, the contiguous water area out to 12 nautical miles, and all air spaces above the land area of Iraq and above the contiguous water area out to 12 nautical miles. The Iraq Campaign Medal period of eligibility is on or after 19 March 2003 through 31 December 2011. A bronze service star is authorized for wear with this medal for participation in each credited campaign. Approved campaigns include the Liberation of Iraq (19 March 2003-1 May 2003) and Transition of Iraq (2 May 2003-28 June 2004). d. The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOTSM) is authorized for all Soldiers on active duty, including Reserve Component Soldiers mobilized or National Guard Soldiers activated, on or after 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined having served 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days. e. The Army Service Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981. Effective 1 August 1981, all members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve in an active Reserve status are eligible for the award upon successful completion of initial entry training. 8. Headquarters, Department of the Army, General Orders Number 2014-49 issued on 18 July 2014 awarded the 3rd Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment, the Valorous Unit Award for the period 7 May 2003 to 15 February 2004. 9. The Joint Travel Regulations are applicable to the unformed members of the seven uniformed services including the Army. Paragraph 010206 (Travel Authorization and Orders) states travel and transportation allowances are payable after valid orders are issued. The order directs travel to, from, or between official points and serves as the basis for the trip and associated reimbursements. In unusual or urgent situations when travel must begin before a written authorization or order can be issued, a verbal authorization may be given with a written authorization to follow. 10. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, states the Secretary of a military department may correct any military record of the Secretary’s department when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice. Except when procured by fraud, a correction under this section is final and conclusive on all officers of the United States. a. No correction may be made under subsection (a)(1) unless the claimant or his heir or legal representative files a request for the correction within three years after he discovers the error or injustice. However, a board established under subsection (a)(1) may excuse a failure to file within three years after discovery if it finds it to be in the interest of justice. b. The Secretary concerned may pay, from applicable current appropriations, a claim for the loss of pay, allowances, compensation, emoluments, or other pecuniary benefits, or for the repayment of a fine or forfeiture, if, as a result of correcting a record under this section, the amount is found to be due the claimant on account of his or another’s service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, as the case may be, or on account of his or another’s service as a civilian employee DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant entered active duty on 15 August 2000 for a 3-year term of active duty service as shown on his DD Form 4. This date established his ETS date as 14 August 2003 which is consistently shown on his LESs that he provided to the Board. On or around 15 February 2003, he deployed with his unit to Kuwait in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced on 19 March 2003). Prior to his deployment, he completed a document wherein he extended his ETS date to on or about 20 December 2003. His signed extension document is not available to the Board for review; however, his ETS date as shown on his 30 November 2003 LES was extended to 20 December 2003. 2. On or about 13 September 2003 he returned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for the purpose of separating from the Regular Army on his ETS date. The applicant, HRC Assistant IG, and CID attest to his use of an illegal substance for which he received an NJP. The DA Form 2627 to support his acceptance of NJP for this offense is not available for review. The DA Form 2627 available for review shows he was absent for a two-day period (16 to 17 October 2003). His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1. His 30 November 2003 LES shows he was reduced to pay grade E-2, presumably by the first NJP. A CID report provided to the applicant by the HRC Assistant IG and available to this Board shows his commander intended to initiate separation action against him for misconduct. 3. The administrative separation packet and separation orders are not filed in his OMPF. The HRC Assistant IG was not able to locate separation files or orders. The applicant departed the installation without processing through the post transition point, thus he did not receive a DD Form 214. As no orders are filed in his or post records and based on his counselor’s argument, he did not receive ETS travel allowances or pay for his accrued leave. 4. The post transition point erred in not preparing orders and a DD Form 214. It is noted that the applicant had financial interest in ensuring he was properly separated, if only to ensure he received travel funds and payment of his 54 days of accrued leave. The documents he provides show he has sought assistance in remedying this error for years. The HRC Assistant IG substantiates his claim; however, based on his misconduct, government officials appear to have been reluctant to issue separation documents because his characterization of service was unknown. In June 2017, HRC completed a DD Form 214 showing his separation date as 20 December 2003 and his characterization of service as honorable. 5. Upon receipt of the DD Form 214, counsel noted it contained errors. a. The Iraq Campaign Medal period of service started on 19 March 2003. His ARCOM award recommendation and certificate shows he served in Iraq with B Company, 3rd Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment, during two campaigns, thus he is authorized the Iraq Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars. General orders awarded his unit the Valorous Unit Award for service in Iraq during a period when the applicant was deployed with the unit. b. He completed 3 years of honorable service on 14 August 2003 meeting the regulatory requirement for the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period from 15 August 2000 to 14 August 2003. His misconduct appears to have occurred solely after his return from a combat deployment on or about 13 September 2003. c. He meets the regulatory criteria for award of the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and GWOTSM. d. He entered Kuwait prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom which commenced on 19 March 2003. Therefore, his foreign service noted in the Remarks section should include service in Iraq. e. He was awarded the Parachutist Badge, which confirms he completed the 3-week Basic Airborne Course. f. Counsel expressed his dissatisfaction with the entry "temporary record" in the Remarks section. As the HRC Assistant IG pointed out, the applicant's leadership and human resources personnel in his chain of command failed to electronically upload documents to the applicant’s OMPF. Documents cannot be recreated. Normally Soldiers receive a copy of each document they sign so they can maintain their own personal record of military service. Based on the documents the applicant provided and the extensive search by the HRC Assistant IG, it appears all known records are available for the Board to render a determination in this case. The ABCMR is not a records repository. 6. Regulatory guidance and the Joint Travel Regulation clearly state for a Soldier to receive final pay, to include payment for accrued leave and authorized transportation allowances for returning to his home of record upon his ETS, separation/discharge orders must be published. 7. Concerning counsel’s argument the applicant is due pay and allowances for the period from 21 December 2003 to the present for being involuntarily retained on active duty, it is clear the applicant's LES in November 2003 advised him that all pay and allowances would be suspended on the applicant’s ETS date of 20 December 2003. It would appear the applicant had ample written notification of the date his pay and allowances were to end. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170007443 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170007443 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2