IN THE CASE OF:. BOARD DATE: 1 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130010760 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, in effect, reinstatement in the U.S. Military Academy (USMA), West Point, NY, and approval to complete his senior year. Additionally, he requests a waiver of the recoupment of his educational assistance costs in the amount of $169,081.00. 2. He states he was separated from USMA in November 2012 for failing the height/weight tape measurement standard, 6 months prior to graduation. He is now being asked to reimburse the cost of his education in the amount of $169,081.00 which should be abated since he was forced to leave. He expounds on his achievements while at USMA and the accolades he received. He further states the recoupment of his educational assistance costs, as well as his separation, is unjustified for the following reasons: * the failed tape measurement standard was conducted on 21 September 2012 by a student and subject to error and a breach of his privacy * he passed a subsequent tape measurement standard on 31 October 2012 * his name was misspelled, his height was .5 inches shorter, and the calculations were wrong in the October 2012 tape measurement * he believes if one sheet has a mistake it brings into question all of the sheets * his height varies between 70 and 69.5 inches, showing he grew and shrunk between weigh-ins and shows that if the heights can be so varied there are errors in the more difficult measurements * the difference between the 20 April 2012 and 22 May 2012 body fat calculations could be a cadet error given he was the same weight and height for both * the difference between the 21 August 2012 and 21 September 2012 body fat calculations could be a cadet error given he was the same height for both and had lost a pound * the tape tests were not administered according to the regulation; specifically, 2 people were not administering the exam and the cadets lacked hands-on training * the body fat calculations were done by the Regimental Tactical non-commissioned officer (TAC NCO) who did not exhibit a trim military appearance himself * he did not meet the Army height/weight standards when he was accepted in USMA in 2008 * he passed the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) on 28 September 2012, 1 week after failing the tape measurement standard which shows he is capable of the physical demands of the Army * there were errors in his out-processing * the memorandum regarding the recoupment misidentifies him and includes errors in the date of cost calculations * his opportunities to respond on his own behalf were rushed * he was denied the opportunity for a review of his case by external reviewers or even by a board of his peers * the Commandant and Superintendent never met with him * he was not permitted to finish the 2012 fall semester after 4 months of effort and he should not have to pay the debt without the degree * he was misguided by officers in charge of him because they told him he might be turned back or, if separated, he would likely not have to pay the debt because he did not voluntarily leave * he was assigned to a command position while on the Army Weight Control Program (AWCP) which is against regulation and did not allow him to adequately concentrate on his weight loss * the regulation for West Point does not require separation for AWCP for cadets and West Point had the flexibility not to separate him * there were inconsistencies in when he entered the AWCP * he was not actively counseled by his tactical officer and he was never given any paperwork informing him that he was placed in the AWCP * he should have been removed from the AWCP following the 31 October 2012 weigh-in and tape test because he met body fat standards * the tape test method is not accurate 3. He provides: * DA Forms 5500 (Body Fat Content Worksheet), dated 21 September 2012 and 31 October 2012 * excerpts from Army Regulation 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program (AWCP)) * excerpt from Army Regulation 210-26 (USMA) * DA Form 705 (APFT Scorecard) * Leader Assessment, dated 10 January 2012 * Cadet Leadership Development Course, Certificate of Completion and Commandant Certificate, dated 7 August 2012 * USMA Oath of Allegiance and Statement of Policies * memorandum, subject: Recoupment of Educational Assistance Costs, (Applicant), dated 27 November 2012, 30 January 2013, and 29 August 2013 * AWCP separation documents * three supporting statements * Investigating Officer (IO) letters, dated 19 February and 29 March 2013 with the applicant's acknowledgement of receipt, dated 6 March 2013 * supporting statement to the IO, dated 6 March 2013 * Congressional correspondence * email, dated 18 March 2013 * photographs * Early Bird article titled, "New Rules Cut Loopholes for Body Fat," dated 8 July 2013 * excerpt from Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act * Orders 029-4, dated 29 January 2013 * USMA letter, dated 29 October 2008 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 29 October 2008, prior to his entry into USMA, the applicant was informed that the Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board (DoD MERB) reported his height and weight as exceeding Army standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). He was told he had until 15 April 2009 to conform to the body fat standards as outlined in the regulation. Failure to meet those standards would result in his disqualification for entrance in USMA. The correspondence directs the applicant to have a school nurse complete a DA Form 5500 (Body Fat Content Worksheet (Male)) through step 2 and return it to the DoD MERB. 2. On 12 December 2008, the applicant's school nurse completed the DA Form 5500 through step 2. The form indicated: * Height: 68.5 inches * Weight: 227 pounds (lbs) * Age: 17 years * Step 1: Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 39.5 inches * Step 2: Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts) 17 inches 3. On 15 January 2009, an official (name illegible) completed the DA Form 5500 calculations (steps 3-7) determining the applicant's percent body fat to be 24%. The official marked the body fat percentage to be "ok" based on Army Regulation 40-501, Table 2-1 for initial Army procurement. 4. On 29 June 2009, the applicant enrolled in USMA at West Point, NY. In connection with his appointment as a cadet at USMA, the applicant signed a Service Agreement. He acknowledged that if he were separated from USMA because of demonstrated unsuitability, unfitness, or physical disqualification for military service he would be discharged in accordance with the applicable Army regulations. If such a discharge were caused by voluntary action or misconduct on the part of a cadet subject to an active duty obligation, the reimbursement provision of the agreement to serve would apply, which states, in part: a. If he is separated from USMA for breach of his service agreement and the Army decides he should not be ordered to active duty because such service would not be in the best interest of the Army, he shall be considered to have either voluntarily or because of misconduct failed to complete the period of active duty and may be required to reimburse the United States. b. A breach of service agreement includes separation resulting from resignation for any of the bases for separation listed in Army Regulation 210-26, table 7-1, which includes failure to meet Army weight and body composition standards or make satisfactory progress in an AWCP in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9. 5. Based on the applicant's cadet record, the applicant's height and weight were recorded on 4 occasions between 2009-2011: * 12 August 2009 - 190 lbs and 68 inches * 14 January 2010 - 217 lbs and 68 inches * 14 September 2010 – 224 lbs and 68 inches * 11 August 2011 - 236 lbs and 69 inches 6. On 21 October 2010, the applicant failed the APFT. On 25 October 2010, the TAC NCO, SFC S, counseled him concerning his APFT failure. The applicant was instructed that he was being enrolled in the Commandant's Physical Remediation Program (CPRP) and had up to 90 days to be retested. The applicant signed and initialed the counseling statement on 26 October 2010, indicating he agreed with the information contained on the statement. The counseling outlined a plan of action for the applicant and directed him to develop a personal training program, to meet with the company physical fitness officer to develop his supplemental program, to keep a daily log of his physical training program, and to meet with the TAC NCO at least once a month to discuss his progress. Additionally, on 10 December 2010 the TAC Officer, MAJ S, counseled the applicant on the APFT failure. The applicant was warned that additional failures in physical fitness could lead to separation. The applicant signed and initialed the counseling statement on the same date, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement. On 4 March 2011, the applicant passed his retest. 7. On 24 August 2011, the applicant failed the APFT. On 6 September 2011, the TAC NCO counseled him concerning his APFT failure. He was instructed to create a workout plan for the APFT and to present it to the TAC Officer no later than 26 September 2011. The counseling also included suggestions for improving his pushups with weight training, performing 100 sit-ups a day, and running hard at least 2-3 times a week. The applicant signed and initialed the counseling statement on 22 September 2011, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement. On 21 November 2011, the applicant passed his retest. 8. On 19 January 2012, Cadet M. B. prepared a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the TAC NCO approved and signed it. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 69.5 inches * Weight: 239 lbs * Age: 20 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 38 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 17 inches * Circumference (Abdomen-Neck): 21 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 22% 9. On 24 January 2012, he was counseled by the TAC NCO for being 2% over the maximum allowable body fat of 20% based on his age of 20 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9. He was told that a Suspension of Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag) was initiated on 29 November 2011 due to substandard APFT performance. Another Flag for the AWCP would be initiated. He was informed that a weight loss of 3 to 8 pounds per month was recommended. After 6 months, if he was still enrolled in the AWCP, he could be considered for separation from USMA. The plan of action included: follow the guidelines set forth by the dietician; continue with physical fitness while on leave or pass; and continue to monitor the progress monthly. He signed and initialed the counseling statement on 24 January 2012, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement. 10. On 8 February 2012, the applicant failed the APFT. On 8 May 2012, the applicant passed his retest. 11. On 21 February 2012, Cadet M. B. prepared a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the TAC NCO approved and signed it. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 69 inches * Weight: 236 lbs * Age: 20 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 39 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 17 inches * Circumference (Abdomen-Neck): 22 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 24% 12. On 22 March 2012, the Tactical Officer prepared and signed a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the TAC NCO approved and signed it. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 69.5 inches * Weight: 239 lbs * Age: 20 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 39.5 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 17 inches * Circumference (Abdomen-Neck): 22.5 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 24% 13. On 22 March 2012, the TAC NCO prepared several correspondences for the applicant. The documents include: a. A memorandum addressed to the applicant entitled “Enrollment Memorandum – Army Weight Control Program.” The memorandum informed the applicant that as of 21 March 2012 he was not in compliance with the body fat standards of Army Regulation 600-9. This memorandum served to enroll him in the AWCP. The memorandum informed him he would be weighed and taped monthly until he met the standards of Army Regulation 600-9. The applicant signed the memorandum on 27 March 2012. The memorandum further advised that separation procedures would be initiated: * If, after six months on the AWCP, he failed to make progress (3 pounds weight per month or loss of 1% body fat per month) and still exceeded the height/weight screening table and body fat percentage * If, within the twelve months of being removed from the AWCP, he failed to meet standards of Army Regulation 600-9 * If he failed to make satisfactory progress (3 pounds weight loss or a reduction of body fat) in the AWCP for two consecutive months separation procedures may be initiated * If, between 12 and 36 months after being removed from the AWCP, he failed to meet the standards of Army Regulation 600-9 and did not achieve them within 90 days separation procedures may be initiated b. A DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) dated 22 March 2012 outlining the applicant’s most recent DA Form 5500. It states that the applicant is 4% over the maximum allowable body fat of 20% based on his age of 20. He was told that a Flag was initiated and signed by the company TAC Officer effective that date. He was directed to receive a medical screening test from the health clinic and see a dietician. He was required to be weighed and taped monthly. At a minimum, he must have a weight loss of 3 to 8 pounds or 1% body fat loss each month. (He signed and initialed the counseling statement on 27 March 2012, indicating that he read and fully understood the actions that were taken against him and the requirements he must meet in order to be removed from the AWCP.) c. A second DA Form 4856 dated 22 March 2012 indicating that on 21 March 2012 the applicant was over the screening table weight and was subsequently taped. He was found to be 4% over the maximum allowable body fat of 20%. He weighed 239 lbs, which was 64 lbs over his maximum allowed weight of 175 lbs. The counseling also reflected the results of prior tests (19 January – 239 pounds and 4% over; 21 February – 236 pounds and 4% over). He was informed that the next weigh-in would occur on or about 21 April 2012. He said if the applicant did not pass or show significant improvement he would be recommended for separation from USMA for failure to meet the Army height/weight standards and failure to show progress in the AWCP. (He signed and initialed the counseling statement on 27 March 2012, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement and the plan of action as follows: * Being checked by medical personnel again to ensure that he has no underlying medical conditions for being overweight * Doing high intensity physical training twice daily * Being on a strict diet and avoiding fast foods, breads, sugars, candy, etc. * Getting with other members of the staff to assist him with exercise and proper diet and eating * Maintaining a daily log for exercise and meals; ensuring he works-out with other people * Always have a workout partner, adding different types of running, and adding high intensity cross-fit sessions into his workout * Chain of command involvement in his workouts * Provide counselor with weekly updates on the status of his workouts, diet log book, and workout partners 14. On 22 March 2012, Cadet M counseled the applicant for his military grade (D). Cadet M highlighted physical fitness struggles, academic difficulty, tardiness or tasks, and issues with personal appearance. He outlined a plan of action to remedy the issues. The applicant signed and initialed the counseling statement on 22 March 2012, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement and the plan of action. 15. On 5 April 2012, the applicant signed the referral memorandum acknowledging he had been counseled by a Dietician on nutrition and weight reduction. 16. On 20 April 2012, the TAC Officer prepared and signed a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the TAC NCO approved and signed it. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 69.5 inches * Weight: 233 lbs * Age: 20 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 39 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 17 inches * Circumference (Abdomen-Neck): 22 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 23% 17. On 20 April 2012, the TAC NCO counseled the applicant that the applicant was over the screening table weight and was subsequently taped. He was found to be 3% over the maximum allowable body fat of 20%. He weighed 233 lbs, which was 58 lbs over his maximum allowed weight of 175 lbs. The counseling also reflected the results of prior tests and noted his 6-lb weight loss and 1% body fat decrease. He was informed that the next weigh-in would occur on or about 20 May 2012. He said if the applicant did not pass or show significant improvement, he would be recommended for separation from USMA for failure to meet the Army height/weight standards and failure to show progress in the AWCP. The counseling provided a similar plan of action for the applicant to follow for losing weight and body fat. He signed and initialed the counseling statement on 20 April 2012, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement and the plan of action. 18. On 21 May 2012, the TAC Officer prepared and signed a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the TAC NCO approved and signed it. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 69 inches * Weight: 233 lbs * Age: 20 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 40 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 17 inches * Circumference (Abdomen-Neck): 23 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 25% 19. On 22 May 2012, the TAC NCO counseled the applicant that the applicant was over the screening table weight and was subsequently taped. He was found to be 5% over the maximum allowable body fat of 20%. He weighed 233 lbs, which was 58 lbs over his maximum allowed weight of 175 lbs. The counseling also reflected the results of prior tests and noted he lost no weight and increased his body fat percentage by 2%. He was informed that the next weigh-in would occur on or about 13 August 2012. He said if the applicant did not pass or show significant improvement, he would be recommended for separation from USMA for failure to meet the Army height/weight standards and failure to show progress in the AWCP. The counseling provided a similar plan of action for the applicant to follow for losing weight and body fat. He signed and initialed the counseling statement on 22 May 2012, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement and the plan of action. 20. In a leader assessment dated 10 June 2012, a trainer whose name is not legible states that the applicant is quiet but unafraid to give decisive orders. It also states he needs some prompting, but rigorously pursues action as required. It described the applicant as having a cool and calm demeanor as well as describing him as reliable, diligent, forthright, and humble. 21. On 7 August 2012, the applicant graduated from the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) Cadet Leadership Course and made the Commandant's List. 22. On 21 August 2012, Cadet T. B. prepared a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the TAC NCO approved and signed it. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 70 inches * Weight: 239 lbs * Age: 21 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 40 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 17.5 inches * Circumference (Abdomen-Neck): 22.5 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 24% 23. On 21 August 2012, the TAC NCO counseled the applicant that the applicant was over the screening table weight and was subsequently taped. He was found to be 2% over the maximum allowable body fat of 22%. He weighed 239 lbs, which was 54 lbs over his maximum allowed weight of 185 lbs. The counseling also reflected the results of prior tests and noted he gained 6 lbs and increased his body fat percentage by 1%. He was informed that the next weigh-in would occur on or about 21 October 2012. He said if the applicant did not pass or show significant improvement, he would be recommended for separation from USMA for failure to meet the Army height/weight standards and failure to show progress in the AWCP. The counseling provided a similar plan of action for the applicant to follow for losing weight and body fat. He signed and initialed the counseling statement on 21 August 2012, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement and the plan of action. 24. On 22 August 2012, the applicant signed the referral memorandum acknowledging he had been counseled by a dietician on nutrition and weight reduction. 25. Based on the 21 August 2012 counseling the applicant was examined by a doctor and the doctor signed a memorandum stating that the applicant's weight is not due to a medical condition. The date the form was signed is unknown. 26. On 21 September 2012, Cadet T. B. prepared a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the TAC NCO approved and signed it. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 70 inches * Weight: 240 lbs * Age: 21 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 41 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 18 inches * Circumference ( Abdomen-Neck): 23 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 25% 27. On 21 September 2012, the TAC Officer, MAJ S, counseled the applicant for being 3% over the maximum allowable body fat of 22% based on his age of 21. His current weight was recorded as 240 pounds which was 55 pounds over his maximum allowed weight of 185 pounds. He was 1 pound heavier and 1% higher body fat than when he was placed in the AWCP. The TAC officer noted that the applicant would weigh-in in October; however, regardless of that test, he was recommending him for separation based on his overall performance since entering the AWCP. The applicant signed and initialed the counseling statement on 21 September 2012, indicating that he agreed with the information contained on the statement and the plan of action. 28. On 22 September 2012, the TAC Officer, MAJ S, signed a memorandum for record that stated he directed the TAC NCO, SFC S, to perform all required AWCP duties for the applicant. 29. On 3 October 2012, the TAC Officer recommended separation of the applicant through the chain of command. He stated that he did not believe the applicant had the ability or self-discipline to maintain the weight standards. The TAC Officer provided the following evidence to support her recommendation: a. Substandard performance in the AWCP as detailed in his weigh-ins since March 2012: * March 2012: 239 lbs and 24% body fat (Standard 175 lbs/20%) * April 2012: 233 lbs and 23% body fat (Standard 175 lbs/20%) * May 2012: 233 lbs and 25% body fat (Standard 175 lbs/20%) * August 2012: 239 lbs and 24% body fat (Standard 185 lbs/22%) * September 2012: 240 lbs and 25% body fat (Standard 185 lbs/22%) b. The applicant tends to perform well when forced, but his desire is inconsistent at best. c. Performance in all 3 pillars (Academic 2.01 GPA, Military 2.77 GPA, and Physical 2.22 GPA) is average to below average and noted the applicant's recent low APFT score (224/D). 30. On an unknown date, the USMA Commandant formally notified the applicant that he was being considered for separation from USMA for failing to make satisfactory progress in the AWCP. The memorandum stated the applicant had been enrolled in the program since 22 March 2012 and had made no significant progress. On 24 October 2012, he acknowledged receipt of the recommendation for separation and indicated his desire to include a response to the memorandum. 31. On 31 October 2012, Cadet T. B. prepared a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the TAC NCO approved and signed it. The form contains 2 errors. First, the body fat percentage is 1% higher than the proper calculation. Additionally, the "Max Weight Allowed" in the remarks box should state 185 lbs rather than 179 lbs. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 69.5 inches * Weight: 231 lbs * Age: 21 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 38.5 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 17.5 inches * Circumference ( Abdomen-Neck): 21 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 22% (Corrected: 21%) 32. On 31 October 2012, the applicant authored a response to the Commandant's memorandum. In the note the applicant stated: a. He passed the body fat test on 31 October 2012 and lost 8.5 lbs since his September weigh-in. b. He has been following the plan of action outlined by his chain of command and working hard. c. He admits that prior to the separation processing he had not been trying hard enough and that he is willing to keep up the progress and lose the weight he gained. d. He admits to struggles in academics, military and physical areas, but believes his other attributes will make him a good officer. 33. On 6 November 2012, the Brigade TAC Officer, COL D, reviewed the separation packet including the 31 October DA Form 5500 and the applicant’s response to the separation proceedings. He directs the Regimental TAC NCO, MSG P, to conduct a weigh-in and an additional body-fat screening. The applicant's TAC NCO prepared and signed a DA Form 5500 on the applicant and the Regimental TAC NCO approved and signed it. This DA Form 5500 was added to the separation packet for the Superintendent's consideration. The key information from the form indicated: * Height: 69.5 inches * Weight: 232 lbs * Age: 21 years * Abdomen (average of 3 measurement attempts): 40 inches * Neck (average of 3 measurement attempts): 17 inches * Circumference ( Abdomen-Neck): 23 inches * Soldier's Percent Body Fat: 25% 34. On 26 November 2012, the Superintendent recommended separation of the applicant to the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1. 35. On 26 November 2012, the applicant attended his final day of classes. 36. In a memorandum, dated 27 November 2012, subject: Recoupment of Education Assistance Costs, (Applicant), the USMA Program and Manpower Management Chief informed the USMA Secretary to the General Staff (SGS) that the applicant was in debt for $169,081.00. 37. In a memorandum for record, dated 4 December 2012, subject: Effort Put Forth by (Applicant) in the AWCP, the applicant's TAC, F4, stated the applicant was enrolled in the AWCP upon his return from Christmas leave in January 2012. He further stated that over the course of 6 months, the applicant did not make significant progress in the program, but he did not believe it was from a lack of effort on the applicant's part, at least not during the last 2 months of the program. He added that when the applicant left on Christmas break, Spring break, and over the summer, he had serious regressions, both in his physical fitness and weight. While at the academy, the applicant put forth effort but was fighting an uphill battle. The TAC said he did not feel the applicant intentionally failed his height/weight standards but opined that the applicant did not have the required self-discipline when he was away from the academy to keep himself in shape or to better moderate his eating habits. 38. On 23 January 2013, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs approved the separation action against the applicant for failure to make satisfactory progress in the AWCP. He found that the applicant was unsuited for active duty service. Therefore, he directed the applicant's discharge from the Army with issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. He also directed initiation of a recoupment investigation. 39. Headquarters, USMA, Orders 029-4, dated 29 January 2013, discharged the applicant from USMA effective 23 January 2013. 40. In a memorandum, dated 30 January 2013, subject: Recoupment of Education Assistance Costs, (Applicant), the USMA Program and Manpower Management Chief informed the USMA SGS that the applicant was in debt for $169,081.00. 41. On 13 February 2013, the USMA Chief of Staff appointed an IO to conduct an informal investigation to determine the validity the applicant's alleged debt. The IO was to answer the following questions: a. Whether the applicant was on notice concerning the military service obligation (MSO) and the financial recoupment requirement if the applicant failed to fulfill his MSO. b. Whether the applicant in fact failed to fulfill the MSO. c. Whether the applicant's separation from USMA and subsequent inability to complete the period of military service specified in the service agreement was the result of misconduct, volitional act or omission, or due to no fault of the applicant. d. Whether the amount of the recoupment is rationally based. 42. On 19 February 2013, the applicant was notified of an informal investigation being conducted under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers). On 6 March 2013, he acknowledged receipt of the notification of the investigation. He signed the receipt acknowledging that he understood the purpose of the investigation was to determine the validity of the debt to the U.S. Government that he owed as a result of his education at USMA. He checked the block indicating that he disputed the validity of the debt and desired to submit statements, testimony, or evidence, either physical or documentary, which was enclosed. 43. On 6 March 2013, the applicant disputed the validity of the debt imposed against him by the academy. He stated he did not commit any act while at the academy that would warrant separation due to misconduct, and in no way was his separation voluntary. He reiterated the information contained in his appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and added that a recoupment would be a financial hardship based on his current debt and assets as evidenced by his personal financial statement. 44. On 6 March 2013, the applicant's parents wrote a letter to the IO explaining the applicant's struggles with his body mass index (BMI) and APFT since his time in the academy. Additionally, they opined that taping a cadet was shown to be one of the least accurate methods of determining body fat percentage. His parents stated that he is exactly the type of youth America needs in leadership positions. Further, they said it would be a great loss to strap him with a recoupment which he has no means to repay and will effectively prevent him from being an effective citizen in the private sector. 45. In an email from the IO, dated 18 March 2013, he explained to the applicant that he was not appointed to re-investigate the underlying basis for his separation or separation action. Additionally, the IO asked the applicant if he had copies of his DA Form 5500 from 2009-2011 and if the applicant could currently pass the height/weight and body fat standards. On 25 March 2013, the applicant responded stating he did not have copies of the DA Form 5500. He stated that while he had never made the height/weight standards, he passed the body fat standards until January 2012. Additionally the applicant stated that since leaving USMA he had been working a full-time job and taking a full course load so physical fitness had not been a priority and he was not sure he could pass a tape test. 46. On 29 March 2013, the IO said he had completed his investigation and attached his findings on a DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by IO). He sent a copy to the applicant. The IO found: a. The applicant signed a valid service agreement putting him on notice that if he breached the service agreement he may be required to reimburse the government for the total cost of education provided to him. b. The applicant failed to fulfill his MSO. c. The failure to make satisfactory performance in the AWCP is a volitional act. d. The debt is rationally based. The government spent $169,081.00 on the education of the applicant. The calculations were confirmed and approved by the USMA Director of Resource Management. e. The applicant’s contentions were noted; however, the IO did not believe they changed his findings for the limited scope of the investigation. 47. On 29 August 2013, the Headquarters, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 directed the recoupment of $169,081.00 from the applicant. 48. In the processing of this case, the ABCMR obtained an advisory opinion from the USMA Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), dated 13 January 2014, who recommended disapproval of the applicant's request. The SJA attached USMA's replies to three separate Congressional inquiries cited in paragraphs 20 through 20d of this document recounting the circumstances of the applicant's separation from USMA and subsequent recoupment of his educational assistance costs in the amount of $169,081.00. In addition to the information cited, the SJA provided the following rebuttal to the applicant's assertions: a. All of the applicant's tape measurements were conducted by trained personnel and approved by the TAC or brigade senior enlisted advisor. The TAC NCO was present and actively involved in every tape measurement. Having a cadet perform the tape measurement was in accordance with the USMA Cadet Leadership Development Program, wherein there is a cadet chain of command and cadets are assigned leadership positions and perform various staff functions. b. The method for determining body fat percentage found in appendix B of Army Regulation 600-9 complies with DOD regulations. Achieving a passing score on the APFT did not exempt him from meeting the body fat standards of Army Regulation 600-9. c. Although the memorandum regarding the recoupment misidentifies him, the subject line contained his correct name and social security number. Additionally, he was subsequently provided a corrected copy of the calculation of educational expenses, dated 30 January 2013. The education cost computation in the 27 November 2012 and the 30 January 2013 memoranda were the same. d. The SJA stated the applicant was afforded due process. He was notified that separation procedures were being considered, all AWCP documents were attached for his review, and his response was considered prior to a recommendation being made. Army Regulation 210-26 does not provide for an external review or referral to a board of peers prior to separating a cadet for failure to make satisfactory process in the AWCP. There is also no requirement for either the Commandant or the Superintendent to meet with the applicant regarding his separation. Nevertheless, the applicant could have requested to meet with them pursuant to their "open-door policies," but there was no evidence he attempted to do so or that he was denied access. 49. On 1 February 2014, the applicant responded to the advisory opinion. The letter contends that there were both errors and injustices: a. He argued that the TAC NCO was not present and actively involved in every tape measurement, but opines that he does not have any evidence to support his contention. He states that allowing a cadet to perform the tape measurement was a breach of his privacy and offered excerpts from publications entitled Joint Guidance on the Application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPAA) to Student Records to support his opinion. b. He opined that the tape measurement standard is unreliable and cited instances documented in Army Times.com where Soldiers' careers have been derailed because of failed tape measurement standards. He stated that inconsistencies in his 31 October 2012 DA Form 5500 as well as drastic changes between his October and November 2012 results prove the user error in the tape test. c. He denied the statement that he "was always held to the body fat standards" and stated he was measured as having 24% body fat on 15 January 2009, but his liaison officer and the DOD physician both attested to his fitness and capability for duty for initial procurement. He provided photographs from 2008, 2010, and 2012 to show the relative consistency of his appearance. He also opined that some other cadets are allowed to graduate (such as football players and other athletes) who do not pass the test. He also stated that because he has always been overweight he did not seriously consider that he would ever be separated for his weight. His lack of weight loss was not a volitional act. d. He stated that his APFT, military, and academic performance should be used as an indicator of his desire to be successful at West Point. e. He stated that he did not agree with the TAC Officer's statement about his lack of self-discipline away from USMA. For the August 2012 weigh-in he had been back at West Point and eating what the Academy fed him for 6 weeks and the 5 weeks prior to that he had been at Fort Benning eating what they fed him. He opined that while he is responsible for intake, what he was offered was buffet style, high calorie and high carbohydrate. He believes since he was on the AWCP, his food intake should have been monitored more closely. f. He stated that since being separated he has maintained a sustainable, low-calorie diet and regimented exercise routine. He claims that what West Point was trying to do was require an "unhealthy overnight weight loss.” g. He stated that he signed the service agreement at 18 years of age and under the duress of Reception Day. h. He stated that the clerical errors explain inattention to detail and lack of accountability. Specifically, he highlights improper paperwork sent to him, name misspelling, and errors in height, weight and body fat calculations. He believes these errors should call into question the validity of all calculations and the entire process. i. In regard to his receipt of due process, he opined that if the USMA Superintendent and Commandant wanted him to succeed, it was incumbent upon them as leaders to call him into their offices and demand to know his side of the story before separating him and charging him with an exorbitant debt. j. He stated that his chain of command and other officers at USMA told him he would not be forced to pay back the educational costs because he was forced out and did not gain the weight voluntarily. k. He stated that if he had completed his 4 years of education and received the diploma from West Point, he would have paid the equivalent of his education in years in service. If he had quit West Point after his sophomore year, he would not have owed West Point anything. He stated he did not receive credit for his senior year; therefore, the most he should be responsible for is 1 year of education. He believes the amount of money will ruin the rest of his life financially. l. He states he is willing to serve the country in lieu of debt. 50. On 21 February 2014, the USMA SJA rendered a correction and supplement to the advisory opinion, dated 13 January 2014. The SJA stated that in order to be admitted to USMA, the applicant was required to meet the weight or body fat standards specified in Army Regulation 40-501. He stated the applicant was notified by letter, dated 29 October 2008 (see paragraph 1 of this document), and he submitted a DA Form 5500 prepared by his school nurse on 15 January 2009 that showed his body fat percentage was below the maximum specified in Army Regulation 40-501. He stated that once the applicant became a cadet, he was required to meet the body fat standards of Army Regulation 600-9 which were more stringent than the initial accession standards. 51. On 28 February 2014, the applicant responded to the corrected advisory opinion and supplement. He reiterated the information contained in his application to this Board and his response to the initial USMA advisory opinion. Additionally, he stated that once again West Point admitted to the mistakes in handling his case. He stated the debt imposed by West Point's decision affects him deeply and he cannot and will never be able to pay that amount. 52. The applicant provided two supporting statements from a retired senior Marine officer who stated he has reviewed the applicant's separation and pertinent documents and recommended an immediate and thorough investigation into the facts of the case by USMA. He stated that it was clear to him that "there was a failure of USMA Regulations and a severe Leadership Failure." 53. Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 2-21 states that Army applicants for initial appointment as commissioned officers must meet the standards of Army Regulation 600-9. All other applicants must meet the standards of tables 2-1 and 2-2. Body fat composition is used as the final determinant in evaluating an applicant's acceptability when the weight exceeds that listed in the weight tables. 54. Table 2-1 provides the military acceptable weight as related to age and height for males for Initial Army Procurement. It shows the maximum weight for a male 17 years of age who is 68 inches is 179 lbs. It also shows that maximum body fat percentage for a male 17 years of age is 26% for initial procurement. The regulation notes state that if a male exceeds these weights, percent body fat will be measured by the method described in Army Regulation 600-9. If the male also exceeds this body fat, he will be rejected for service. 55. Army Regulation 600-9, previously titled the AWCP, was updated 28 June 2013 and re-titled The Army Body Composition Program. For the purposes of this Board, the version in place at the time of the applicant’s service dated 27 November 2006 will be used. The regulation establishes policies and procedures for implementation of the AWCP. a. Paragraph 3-1a states commanders and supervisors will monitor all members of their command (officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel) to ensure that they maintain proper weight, body composition, and personal appearance. At a minimum, personnel will be weighed when they take the APFT or at least every 6 months. Personnel exceeding the screening table weight (table 3–1) or identified by the commander or supervisor for a special evaluation will have a determination made of percent body fat. Identification and counseling of overweight personnel are required. b. Table 3-1 outlines minimum and maximum weights for men and women based on their age. The notes state that height will be measured in stocking feet (without shoes), standing on a flat surface with the chin parallel to the floor. The body will be straight but not rigid, similar to the position of attention. The measurement will be rounded to the nearest inch with the following guidelines: If the height fraction is less than 1/2 inch, round down to the nearest whole number in inches; if the height fraction is 1/2 inch or greater, round up to the next highest whole number in inches. Weight will be measured and recorded to the nearest pound within the following guidelines: If the weight fraction is less than 1/2 pound, round down to the nearest pound; if the weight fraction is 1/2 pound or greater, round up to the next highest pound. The key portions of the table pertaining to this case are: * Men 68 inches tall: 170 lbs (17-20 years old), 174 lbs (21-27 years old) * Men 69 inches tall: 175 lbs (17-20 years old), 179 lbs (21-27 years old) * Men 70 inches tall: 180 lbs (17-20 years old), 185 lbs (21-27 years old) c. Table 3-2 outlines the maximum allowable body fat percentage for men and women based on age. For men ages 17-20, the maximum allowable percentage of body fat is 20% and for 21-27 years of age it is 22%. d. Paragraph 3-1d(2) states personnel who are overweight will not be assigned to command, command sergeant major, or first sergeant positions. e. Paragraph 3-2a and b states that body fat composition will be determined for personnel whose body weight exceeds the screening table weight in table 3–1 or when the unit commander or supervisor determines that the individual’s appearance suggests that body fat is excessive. Routine weigh-ins will be accomplished at the unit level. Percent body fat measurements will be accomplished by company or similar level commanders (or their designee) in accordance with standard methods prescribed in appendix B of Army Regulation 600-9. Active Army and Reserve Component Soldiers exceeding body fat standards in table 3-1 (determined to be overfat) will be provided exercise guidance, dietary information or weight reduction counseling by health care personnel, and assistance in behavioral modification, as appropriate, to help them attain the requirements of the Army. Soldiers not meeting body fat standards after 1 year from date of entry into the Active Army will be entered in the AWCP and flagged. Enrollment in a weight control program starts on the day that the Soldier is informed by the unit commander that he/she has been entered in a weight control program. The weight reduction counseling may be accomplished prior to or shortly after entry into a program. f. Paragraph 3-2d states a medical evaluation is also required for Soldiers being considered for separation because of a failure to make satisfactory progress in the AWCP. g. Paragraph 3-2f states commanders and supervisors will remove individuals administratively from a weight control program as soon as the body fat standard is achieved. The screening table weight will not be used to remove Soldiers from a weight control program. h. Paragraph 3-2g(2) states the unit commander will initiate administrative separation proceeding for Soldiers who do not make satisfactory progress in the AWCP after a 6-month period and for whom no medical reasons exist to cause the overweight condition. i. Paragraph 3-2j states the commander or supervisor will inform the Soldier in writing that separation proceedings are being initiated. The individual will immediately respond to the separation consideration letter in writing. The commander or supervisor will consider the response and initiate separation action if no adequate explanation is provided. j. Paragraph 3-2k states that if within 12 months following removal from the AWCP it is determined that an individual exceeds the screening table weight and the body fat standard and no underlying or associated disease process is found as the cause of the condition, the unit commander will initiate separation proceedings. k. Appendix B outlines the procedures for the measurements of height, weight, and specific body circumferences for the estimation of body fat. For purposes of the Body Fat Content Worksheet, height is measured to the nearest half inch and weight is measured to the nearest pound. The abdomen measurement is rounded down to the nearest half inch and measured 3 times. The neck is rounded up to the nearest half inch and measured 3 times. The circumference value is determined by subtracting the average neck circumference from the average abdomen circumference. Figure B-5 contains the Body Fat Estimations for men based on height and circumference value. 56. Army Regulation 210-26 provides policy and procedures for the general governance and operation of USMA. a. Paragraph 3-14 states cadets will sign a service agreement to complete the course of instruction and to serve in the United States Army in accordance with applicable regulations. b. Paragraph 6-24 states a cadet with no underlying or associated disease process who fails to make satisfactory progress in a weight control program or following removal from a weight control program exceeds the screening table weight and the body fat standard contained in Army Regulation 600-9 may be separated from USMA. c. Paragraph 7-9 states cadets who resign from USMA or who are separated from USMA under the procedures contained in table 7-1 will be deemed to have breached their service agreements. d. Table 7-1 states that failure to meet Army weight and body fat composition standards or make satisfactory progress in a weight control program in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 will be deemed a breach of service contract. e. Prior to initiation of separation action, the USMA Commandant will prepare a letter stating that separation proceedings are being considered. All documentation that provides the basis for the determination of failure to make satisfactory progress in a weight control program will be attached to the letter. The Commandant will consider the cadet's response to this letter prior to forwarding a recommendation for separation to the Superintendent. f. A cadet who voluntarily or because of misconduct fails to complete the period of active duty service specified by the Secretary of the Army in the cadet's agreement to serve may be required to reimburse the U.S. Government for educational costs pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005, and implementing regulations. If the Secretary of the Army determines that such active duty service is not in the best interests of the Army, the cadet will be considered to have failed to complete the period of active duty and may be required to reimburse the U.S. Government for educational costs. g. When the USMA Superintendent recommends reimbursement of educational costs and the cadet disputes the validity of the debt, the Superintendent is authorized to appoint an IO to hear evidence concerning the validity of the debt under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005(g)(1). 57. Army Regulation 37-104-3 (Finance Update) provides policies and provisions for entitlements and collections of pay and allowances of military personnel. Chapter 59 provides for recoupment of educational expenses (e.g., Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, USMA, and advanced civilian schooling) under a previous agreement when obligated active duty service has not been completed. 58. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005, serves as the authority for reimbursement for advanced education assistance. It states that individuals who fail to complete the terms of their advanced education assistance agreements will reimburse the United States for the unserved portion not fulfilled. 59. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 4348, states that each cadet shall sign an agreement with respect to the cadet's length of service in the Armed Forces. The agreement shall provide that the cadet will complete the course of instruction at USMA. It also states a cadet shall be considered to have breached an agreement if the cadet is separated from USMA under circumstances which the Secretary determines constitute a breach by the cadet of the cadet's agreement to complete the course of instruction at the Academy. A cadet or former cadet who does not fulfill the terms of the agreement shall be subject to the repayment provisions of Title 37, U.S. Code, section 303a(e). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s request for reinstatement in USMA, West Point, NY, approval to complete his senior year, and recoupment of his educational assistance costs was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request. 2. The applicant contends that he should never have been allowed in because he was over the screening weight standards before and during his time at USMA. Army Regulation 40-501 outlines initial procurement height, weight, and body fat standards. These standards are slightly different than those in Army Regulation 600-9 that are used once a Soldier is in the Army. Records indicate that the applicant's body fat percentage was 24% prior to entry. This meets the initial procurement standards for a 17 year old male (26%) outlined in Army Regulation 40-501. His record is void of a DA Form 5500 from his first 2 years at USMA; however, the applicant himself stated that he passed all tape tests until the January 2012 test. 3. The evidence of record shows the applicant was accepted into one of the most elite military academies in the country. On 29 June 2009, he signed a service agreement wherein he acknowledged that if he were separated from USMA because of demonstrated unsuitability, unfitness, or physical disqualification for military service he would be discharged in accordance with applicable Army regulations. 4. He also agreed that if he were separated from USMA for a breach of his service agreement and the Army decided that he should not be ordered to active duty because such service would not be in the best interest of the Army, he would be considered to have either voluntarily or because of misconduct failed to complete the period of active duty and may be required to reimburse the United States. 5. Although he argued that his separation was not voluntary, his service agreement, as well as Army Regulation 210-26, explained that failure to meet Army weight and body composition standards or make satisfactory progress in a weight control program in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 would be deemed as a breach of service contract. 6. The applicant contends that there is confusion about when he entered the AWCP and that he never received any formal documentation of his entry. Records indicate that the applicant received counseling from the TAC NCO on 24 January 2012 outlining his entry into the AWCP. The counseling form states that he would be flagged for the AWCP. Army Regulation 600-9 states enrollment starts the day he was informed and this counseling meets that standard. It appears the chain of command delayed formal entry into the program until 22 March 2012 to allow the applicant an additional 2 months to work on weight loss. The 6-month window required by the regulation was met even with the March start date. On 22 March 2012, the applicant received a formal memorandum outlining the details of his entry into the AWCP. He signed the document acknowledging receipt. 7. The applicant contends that he was not actively counseled or counseled until the end of the process. Records indicate that he was counseled on at least 7 separate instances on the AWCP spanning January through October 2012. The counseling statements outline a plan of action and in each instance the applicant agreed with the plan of action and signed the form acknowledging receipt. Additionally, he received dietary counseling on 2 occasions and counseling from his cadet leadership. In each instance he signed the forms acknowledging receipt. 8. The applicant contends that the tape tests to determine body fat composition were not performed within regulatory standards established in Army Regulation 600-9. Specifically, he contends that the use of cadets to perform the tape test is not appropriate and that the TAC NCO did not supervise the tape tests. Army Regulation 600-9 does not preclude cadets from performing the tape test and there is no evidence in the record to corroborate his contention that the TAC NCO was not present. For each DA Form 5500, the TAC NCO signed the form. 9. The applicant contends that Army Regulation 210-26 does not require separation for AWCP and that the leadership should have considered his APFT score as an indicator of his physical readiness. In the TAC Officer's 4 October 2012 memorandum recommending separation he states that his recommendation to separate is based on the AWCP failure as well as the fact that the applicant was an average to below average performer in all 3 pillars. Additionally, while the applicant's performance at schools and on his last APFT is noted, records also contain counseling statements for substandard military performance and include records of 3 failed APFTs during his cadet career. 10. The applicant contends that his October 2012 DA Form 5500 has errors. The record does have 2 errors. The errors would change the body fat percentage from 22% to 21%. Additionally, the applicant contends that given that his 31 October 2012 is within standard it should have triggered his removal from the AWCP. The regulation does state that a Soldier should be removed when he meets standards; however, it also states that once removed, if a Soldier fails to meet body fat standards within 12 months they should be processed for separation. With the November body fat percentage exceeding the standard the outcome would not have changed. 11. The applicant contends there were inconsistent height measurements between April 2012 and October 2012. The records do indicate that in April he was measured at 69.5 inches and only 69 in May; however, even if measured at 69.5 inches in May 2012, the corresponding body fat percentage remains unchanged (25%) based on Figure B-5 in Army Regulation 600-9. The records also indicate that in October 2012 he was measured at 69.5 inches after being measured at 70 inches the 2 previous months. Even at 69.5 inches, the applicant did not meet body fat standards in October. 12. The applicant contends that if errors were made on the height, there could be other errors in the other measurements. There is insufficient evidence in the record that there were errors beyond the administrative errors discussed above. In absence of evidence of substantive errors, there is a presumption of administrative regularity. 13. Army Regulation 600-9 prevents personnel in the AWCP from being put into command positions. The regulation does not cover all leadership positions, just those in command and part of the chain of responsibility; therefore, assigning the applicant as a platoon leader was not inappropriate. The applicant contends that this leadership position prevented him from focusing on his weight; however, as an officer he would be expected to fulfill his leadership responsibilities and still meet Army weight/body fat standards. 14. The evidence shows he was afforded due process. His counseling statements verify that he was counseled monthly concerning his progress in the AWCP and given a plan of action for success which he signed and initialed indicating that he agreed with the counseling statements as well as the plan of action. 15. The evidence also shows he was formally notified by the USMA Commandant that he was being considered for separation for failing to make satisfactory progress in the AWCP, he was given the opportunity to submit a rebuttal to the separation action, and the Commandant reviewed his rebuttal prior to making the final determination. Additionally, an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was conducted to ascertain whether his rights were violated in the recoupment of his educational assistance costs and those findings were provided to him. The applicant's contention that the Superintendent and Commandant were not available to meet with him is noted; however, there is no evidence indicating he was prevented from requesting or denied a personal meeting with either leader. 16. Since he did not fulfill the requirements of his service agreement due to failing to make satisfactory progress in the AWCP, he was separated from USMA and incurred a debt to the U.S. Government. On the surface, the amount appears to be substantial. The cost of education at USMA is, in fact, substantial. His debt is a result of his own inaction and indiscipline. In his note to the Commandant he stated he had not been putting in enough effort. Additionally, in the applicant's response to the advisory opinion he notes that he never took the threat of separation for weight standards seriously. His failure to act in such a manner as to bring himself into compliance with the standards was a voluntary decision to breach the service agreement and the debt is simply a consequence of that voluntary failure. 17. The applicant's position that the tape test is not accurate and that his body type made it difficult to pass the tape-test is noted. The Army standard is to use the tape test. Additionally, the applicant was able to make the standard his first 2 years at USMA and there was no identified medical reason to explain his inability to pass the test in his 3rd and 4th year. 18. The applicant contends that he was given mixed messages and was not set up for success by the chain of command. There is no evidence in the record of mixed message or a lack of effort to set the applicant up for success. On the contrary, the counseling statements all consistently lay out the consequences of failing to make progress. Additionally, each form offered a plan of action and the leadership stated their willingness to help. Army Regulation 600-9 outlines that maintaining weight standard is the responsibility of every Soldier individually. 19. The applicant's assertion that the debt is too much for him to pay is noted; however, an applicant's ability to pay the debt is not a sufficient reason to excuse the debt. 20. In his response to the advisory opinion, the applicant states that since leaving USMA he has maintained a fitness and diet regimen and expressed a willingness to serve in lieu of the debt. However, on 18 March 2013, the IO asked the applicant if he could pass the tape test at that time and the applicant's 25 March 2013 response stated that he had been focused on his job and his course work and not on his fitness. Therefore, given his inability to meet the standards while at USMA and his admitted lack of focus on achieving body fat standards since leaving, it would be inappropriate to allow the applicant to serve in the Army in lieu of recoupment or return to USMA to complete his senior year. 21. Based on the overall evidence, the applicant has not shown an error or an injustice. Therefore, his separation should not be reversed and he should not be entitled to cancellation of his debt. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ___X____ ___X____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________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) AR20130010760 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130010760 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1