RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016078


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

The applicant defers to counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant’s discharge be voided and all
references to his unlawful discharge be removed from his records; that he
be restored to active duty from the date of his unlawful discharge with
back pay (with an appropriate offset for his civilian earnings); that he be
issued a course graduation certificate for Military Police Officer’s Basic
Course (MPOBC) 2-03; that he receive automatic promotion to the appropriate
grade and rank by operation of law; and that he receive any other remedy
deemed appropriate by the Board to provide complete and full relief.

2.  Counsel states that on 12 May 2003 the applicant was scheduled to
participate in the graduation ceremony for MPOBC 2-03.  An academic
evaluation report, also dated 12 May 2003, certified he had completed all
course and graduation requirements.  Each graduation requirement had been
specifically identified and described in the official Student Evaluation
Plan and course syllabus distributed at the beginning of the course.  At
8:15 a.m., the applicant was preparing to pass out programs for the
graduation ceremony scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m.  Captain I___, the
team chief for the course, stated that when he approached the applicant he
noticed the odor of alcohol on him.

3.  Counsel states that the applicant admitted drinking alcohol while
celebrating with classmates the night before.  A breath analysis
established that his blood alcohol content (BAC) was .058 percent on
graduation morning.  Army regulations prescribe that on-duty personnel may
not have a BAC at or above .050 percent.  Based upon this incident, the
command prevented the applicant from participating in the graduation
ceremony for the MPOBC.

4.  Counsel states that since participation in the actual MPOBC graduation
ceremony was not a requirement to complete the course of instruction, the
applicant’s discharge for failure to complete the course was unlawful.
Counsel states the notice to the applicant that he was subject to discharge
for the incident on graduation morning only specified “misconduct and
leadership deficiencies.”  Because he was discharged on a basis different
than the one for which he received notice, his discharge violated both Army
regulations and his right to due process.

5.  Counsel states that a course syllabus was passed out on the first day
of MPOBC 2-03, which set out the specific course graduation requirements.
The graduation requirements are listed as:

      Comply with Army Regulation 600-9, Height and Weight Standard
      M9 [pistol] Qualification
      Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)
      Demonstrate Leadership Skills
      70 percent Academic Average
      Pass all Examinations and Performance-Oriented Events
      Effective Communications Skills (Oral and Written)
      Land Navigation

6.  Counsel states that the applicant was given counseling about the
graduation requirements and initialed the counseling form.  Each
requirement was initialed by the applicant.  The form warned of ten
prohibited practices that could end a career.  None of the prohibited
practices are at issue in this case.  A Service School Academic Evaluation
Report (AER) dated 12 May 2003, the date of the MPOBC graduation ceremony,
certified that the applicant had completed all requirements for the course.
 On the evening prior to graduation, the applicant consumed alcohol while
celebrating with friends.  He stated he went to bed shortly after 10:00
p.m. that evening and arose the next morning at 6:00 a.m. to prepare for
the day and reported for duty at 7:55 a.m.  In testimony before the Faculty
Board, the applicant stated he truly regretted his consumption of beverages
that evening and the amount of time it would take for the alcohol to leave
his system.  He did not feel drunk or intoxicated.  He felt he let the Army
down because he broke an Army standard.  He felt he let his class, and his
family, down.

7.  Counsel states that a Student Status Review was initiated two days
after the graduation ceremony.  The recommendation was to eliminate the
applicant from MPOBC and declare him a non-graduate.  The recommendation
specifically relied upon Appendix J to the Student Evaluation Plan that
provided discretionary elimination for “personal conduct which makes
continuation in the course inappropriate” or “deficiency in leadership
skills commensurate with grade and branch.”  However, continuation in the
course was not an issue at that point in time.  The course and all course
work had already been completed.  Likewise, leadership skills were not an
issue because his leadership skills had already been evaluated and
certified as satisfactory for course completion.  The only issue at that
point in time was a proper consequence for the applicant’s admitted
misconduct.  The applicant appealed the Student Status Review, arguing that
it was not appropriate to declare him a non-graduate after a signed record
certifying course completion had already been issued.
8.  Counsel states that a Faculty Board was convened to consider the
applicant for involuntary separation.  The applicant’s notice of the
Faculty Board stated that, as a student in MPOBC 2-03, he did not meet the
standards of the U. S. Army Military Police School (USAMPS), due to
misconduct and leadership deficiencies.  The Faculty Board would review
evidence and testimonies submitted and recommend disposition of his case,
i.e., possible discharge from his commission and elimination from the Army.

9.  Counsel states that during the Faculty Board it was brought up that
there was nothing in writing that a student was a non-graduate until he/she
went through the graduation ceremony.  CPT I___ had testified to this
issue, “…that I tell each class as they in-process…that you are a student
in USAMPS until you walk across that stage and receive your diploma and
technically you are still assigned here until you sign in to your new
unit.”

10.  Counsel states that the Faculty Board found that the applicant’s
misconduct had been sufficiently handled with a general officer memorandum
of reprimand (GOMOR) and recommended he be retained.  However, the
Commandant recommended the applicant be released from active duty and his
reserve appointment terminated due to academic or leadership deficiencies
(emphasis in the original).  The Commandant’s recommendation was approved,
and the applicant was involuntarily discharged due to “Failure to Complete
a Course of Instruction.”

11.  Counsel states that since participation in the actual MPOBC graduation
ceremony was not a requirement to complete the course of instruction, the
applicant’s discharge for failure to complete this course of instruction
was unlawful.  The applicant’s initial counseling, conducted for the
express purpose of making sure he understood the graduation requirements,
neither identified nor suggested that participating in the graduation
ceremony was a requirement to complete the MPOBC.  Counsel states that even
if CPT I___’s testimony before the Faculty Board is accepted as entirely
correct, that testimony did not comment on whether participation in the
graduation ceremony is necessary in order to complete the MPOBC course of
instruction.  Instead, it merely states that students remain assigned to
the MP School until they are assigned to a new unit.

12.  Counsel states that a review of the Student Status Review
recommendation is also instructive.  That recommendation specifically
relied upon Appendix J to the Student Evaluation Plan that provided
discretionary elimination for “personal conduct which makes continuation
(emphasis in the original) in the course inappropriate” or ”deficiency in
leadership skills (emphasis in the original) commensurate with grade and
branch.”  The applicant’s skills had already been evaluated and certified
as satisfactory for course completion.  “Continuation in the course”
(emphasis added) was not at issue.  Likewise, leadership skills (emphasis
added) were not at issue.  While the MP School could have taken legitimate
and lawful action against the applicant for misconduct, it was unlawful to
discharge him for failure to complete a course of instruction when he was
certified to have completed all the requirements for that course.

13.  Counsel states that the notice to the applicant that he was subject to
discharge only specified “misconduct and leadership deficiencies.”  Because
he was discharged on a basis different than the one for which he received
notice, his discharge violated both Army regulations and his right to due
process.  The applicant was prepared to answer the charges of “misconduct
and leadership deficiencies.”  Moreover, the relevant findings and
recommendations of the Faculty Board each related to the charges of
“misconduct and leadership deficiencies.”  The Faculty Board limited its
findings and its recommendations to the issue of the applicant’s
“misconduct and leadership deficiencies.”  The Faculty Board made no
finding and no recommendation relating to whether the applicant had any
academic deficiencies or failed to complete a course of instruction.

14.  Counsel states that if they had been appropriately persuaded, the
applicant’s command could have lawfully discharged him consistent with the
notice he was provided, i.e., for misconduct and leadership deficiencies.
However, the command instead chose to discharge the applicant based upon an
entirely new basis for which notice had not been given, “failure to
complete a course of instruction.”  Because the command acted in direct
violation of the notice provisions of Army Regulation 15-6, paragraph 5-
5(b), the applicant’s discharge must be considered unlawful.

15.  Counsel provides the 17 enclosures listed on the Appendix to the
applicant’s application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was commissioned
out of Officer Candidate School and appointed as a second lieutenant in the
U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 5 December 2002.  He entered active duty that
date and was assigned to USAMPS to attend MPOBC 2-03.

2.  The applicant was provided an MPOBC Student Evaluation Plan (SEP).  The
purpose of the SEP was to inform students of the requirements and
procedures for course completion.  Paragraph 1d of this SEP stated that
graduation status was determined by a student’s ability to complete all
course requirements.  Paragraph 1d(2) stated that these requirements
included maintaining Army ethics and values.  Violations would not be
tolerated.

3.  Paragraph 4b of the MPOBC SEP stated that an AER (DA Form 1059) would
be prepared by the student’s small group leader (SGL) upon course
completion and a copy would be furnished to each student.

4.  ANNEX B (Graduation Requirements and Weighted Scores) of the SEP stated
that graduation status for MPOBC students was determined by their ability
to successfully complete all course requirements as stated in the SEP.  To
successfully complete the MPOBC students must, in part (paragraph 1d),
demonstrate appropriate leadership skills/attributes.  Leadership skills
are evaluated by the SGLs throughout the course.

5.  Paragraph 3b of ANNEX J (Student Status Review (SSR)/Eliminations) of
the SEP stated a student could be involuntarily eliminated from the MPOBC
prior to graduation for the following discretionary reasons:  (1) personal
conduct which made continuation in the course inappropriate; (2) failure to
meet course academic standards as outlined in the SEP; and (3) deficiency
in leadership skills commensurate with grade and branch.

6.  ANNEX J of the SEP stated that if any SGL or the Chief, Officer Basic
Leader Branch received information that a student was involved in a
situation among those listed in paragraph 3b(1) through 3b(3), the
student’s SGL would immediately assess its credibility.  If the SGL
determined the circumstances were credible, he/she would immediately
prepare a recommendation for review of the student’s status.  The
recommendation would include, among other requirements, the specific
category of paragraph 3 that pertained to the student’s recommendation for
elimination; the academic performance of the student; recommendations for
disposition from the chain of command; a statement about graduation
requirements that the student had achieved and/or failed to achieve; and an
evaluation of the student’s leadership skills as assessed by the SGL.

7.  ANNEX J of the SEP stated the student would be informed that the
recommendation would be sent through channels to the Director of Training
(DOT).  The student could submit matters for the decision maker’s
consideration, as well as request a personal appearance before the decision
maker.  The DOT could decide the student would remain in good standing and
continue in the class; the student would be recycled into a subsequent
class; or the student would be eliminated from student status and would be
declared a non-graduate.

8.  ANNEX J of the SEP stated the student could appeal the decision.  If
the student indicated a desire to appeal, the DOT’s decision would be sent
to the Assistant Commandant, USAMPS, for review.  The Assistant Commandant
could either approve or disapprove the DOT’s decision.  The Assistant
Commandant, USAMPS would notify the student of his decision.  A copy of all
actions resulting in elimination of active duty Army officers would be
forwarded to the Commander, 701st MP Battalion for action.

9.  On 6 February 2003, the applicant received his initial counseling.  He
initialed, in part, that he understood that he would be expected to lead by
example and to maintain the highest military bearing and discipline, on or
off duty.

10.  On 12 May 2003, an AER was prepared to show the applicant marginally
achieved course standards.  Adverse remarks included noting that he needed
to understand commanders’ intent better when writing and presenting written
information; that he led based on emotion rather than common sense; that he
had slight difficulty in working with peers; and that he had potential to
develop into a strong leader with proper mentorship.

11.  A second AER, also dated 12 May 2003, was prepared to show the
applicant failed to achieve course standards.  Adverse remarks included
noting he needed to understand commanders’ intent better when writing and
presenting written information, that he made another poor decision by
showing up to graduation with alcohol on his breath, blowing a .058; that
he had slight difficulty in working with peers; and that he lacked the
fundamental attributes required of a platoon leader.  A copy of this AER
was referred to him on 9 June 2003.

12.  By memorandum dated 14 May 2003, the Chief, Officer Basic Leader
Branch prepared a memorandum for the DOT, USAMPS.  He stated an SSR was
initiated on the applicant for personal conduct which made continuation in
the course inappropriate and a deficiency in leadership skills commensurate
with grade and branch.  He stated the applicant arrived at the graduation
rehearsal on 12 May 2003 with an alcoholic smell emitting from his breath.
The applicant was given a command-directed breath analysis and registered a
.058 on the breathalyzer.  He expanded on the applicant’s deficiencies in
the MPOBC and noted the applicant had issues getting his security clearance
granted during the course due to both financial and anger management issues
in his past.  He recommended the applicant be eliminated from the course
and declared a non-graduate due to the reasons noted above.

13.  By memorandum dated 14 May 2003, the applicant’s SGL stated he
confirmed the odor of alcohol coming from the applicant.  He recommended
the applicant be eliminated from the course and declared a non-graduate.
He notified the applicant of the initiation of the SSR on this date.

14.  By memorandum dated 20 May 2003, the DOT, USAMPS decided to eliminate
the applicant from MPOBC 2-03 and declare him a non-graduate.  He referred
his decision to the applicant’s chain of command for action.  He informed
the applicant he could appeal the decision.

15.  On 22 May 2003, the applicant appealed the DOT’s decision to the
Assistant Commandant, USAMPS.  He stated it was not appropriate to declare
him a non-graduate from a school that had already issued him a signed
record of course completion.

16.  On 26 June 2003, the Commanding General, U. S. Army Maneuver Support
Center and Fort Leonard Wood, issued the applicant a GOMOR for violating a
lawful general regulation by reporting to duty on 12 May 2003 with a BAC of
0.58 grams per 100 milliliters of blood in his system (Army Regulation 600-
85 permitting no more than .05 grams while on duty).  The applicant
rebutted the GOMOR.  The issuing authority considered his rebuttal, and
directed the GOMOR be filed in his OMPF.

17.  By memorandum dated 28 July 2003, the 701st MP Battalion commander
recommended USAMPS initiate a School Faculty Board per chapter 2, Army
Regulation 600-8-24 to review the applicant’s recent misconduct.  The
battalion commander stated the applicant failed to meet the conduct and
leadership standards required of students attending MPOBC by reporting for
his class’s graduation rehearsal smelling of alcohol, with a subsequent BAC
reading of   .058 percent.  It was additionally noted that the applicant
had been declared a non-graduate of the MPOBC due to his failing to meet
all course requirements; specifically, graduating in good standing.

18.  By memorandum dated 5 August 2003, the Acting Commandant informed the
applicant that he had not met the standards of the USAMPS due to misconduct
and leadership deficiencies, and he ordered a Faculty Board to be convened
to review the applicant’s misconduct and leadership deficiencies.  The
Faculty Board would review evidence and testimonies and recommend
disposition of the applicant’s case; i.e., possible discharge from his
commission and elimination from the Army.

19.  The commander’s recommendation, in the Faculty Review Board Summary
Sheet, was that the applicant be branch transferred to a different
specialty and allowed to attend that initial service school with follow on
assignment in that branch.

20.  A memorandum dated 25 August 2003 indicated that the Faculty Review
Board recommended the applicant be retained in the Army and branch
transferred to the Adjutant General Corps or a course [in accord with] the
needs of the Army.

21.  On 27 August 2003, the Acting Commandant nonconcurred with the Faculty
Review Board’s recommendation to retain the applicant on active duty.  The
Acting Commandant stated, “During his short period of commissioned service,
he has managed to receive a General Officers’ letter of Reprimand for
misconduct and has been declared a non-graduate of the MP Officer Basic
course.  The Board even admits he should not be an MP.  They have it wrong.
 He should not be an officer, period…he has no potential as an officer in
the U. S. Army.”

22.  By memorandum dated 27 August 2003 to the Commander, U. S. Army
Maneuver Support Center and Fort Leonard Wood (the general court-martial
convening authority), the Commandant, USAMPS recommended the applicant be
released from active duty and his reserve appointment be terminated.  The
Commandant noted that in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24,
paragraph 2-37a(3), a Reserve component officer with less than three years
commissioned service will be released from active duty and discharged from
his USAR commission when the officer fails to met the standards of service
schools due to academic or leadership deficiencies.

23.  The Chief, Administrative Law, Office of The Staff Judge Advocate,
Fort Leonard Wood, MO reviewed the Faculty Board proceedings.  By
memorandum dated 8 October 2003, he noted that the proceedings were
generally conducted according to law and regulation.  He noted the Faculty
Board proceedings were procedurally deficient in two respects:  deficient
notification to the applicant and improper appointment memorandum for the
Faculty Board, but also found that those procedural errors were harmless.

24.  The Chief, Administrative Law noted that the letter of notification
failed to indicate the name and address of each witness expected to be
called by the recorder (i.e., the government), and the letter failed to
state the specific allegation to be investigated in sufficient detail to
allow the applicant to prepare.  He stated the notification should have
included the specific allegation that the applicant had a BAC of .058
percent at his OBC graduation ceremony on 12 May 2003.

25.  The Chief, Administrative Law found that the errors in notifying the
applicant were harmless because they did not have a material adverse effect
on his substantial rights.  Although the notification did not mention the
specific allegations of excessive BAC at his graduation, the applicant
apparently was aware that that misconduct would be examined.  Similarly, he
was able to convince the Faculty Board that he should be retained in the
Army, so he was apparently able to respond adequately to the evidence and
witnesses that the Government presented against him.

26.  The Chief, Administrative Law found the Faculty Board appointment
memorandum to be legally objectionable, but also found the error to be
harmless. The sentence, “The Board will review evidence and testimony
submitted and make appropriate findings and recommendations to the
commandant, US Military Police School, for disposition of the case, i.e.
discharge for his commission and elimination from the United States Army”
was found objectionable because it could be construed as a suggestion by
the appointing authority to the Faculty Board that the disposition of the
case should be “discharge of his commission and elimination from the United
States Army.”  Such a suggestion of the appropriate disposition of the case
by an appointing authority would not be proper.

27.  The Chief, Administrative Law found, however, that any error was
harmless, and noted that given that the Faculty Board recommended
retention, it obviously was not impacted by any improper suggestion in the
appointment memorandum that the applicant should be eliminated.  The
applicant’s substantial rights were clearly not prejudiced.

28.  The Chief, Administrative Law found that the Faculty Board’s findings,
although somewhat vague, were minimally legally sufficient.  The Faculty
Board’s recommendations were supported by its findings, but the fact the
appointing authority made a different recommendation than the Faculty Board
was not legally objectionable.  The Chief, Administrative Law found that
there was no requirement that the appointing authority must adopt the
Faculty Board’s recommendations, pointing out that the governing regulation
only requires the school commandant to forward his recommendations with the
Faculty Board proceedings to the officer exercising general court-martial
jurisdiction over the school, who may then approve or disapprove the
Faculty Board’s findings and recommendations.

29.  In an undated letter, the general court-martial convening authority
considered the findings and recommendations of the USAMPS Faculty Board
concerning the applicant and approved the Commandant’s recommendation that
the applicant’s commission be removed and he be discharged from the Army
with an honorable discharge.

30.  On 12 December 2003, the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-37.  The narrative
reason for separation on his DD Form 214 was listed as “FAILURE TO COMPLETE
COURSE OF INSTRUCTION” and he was given a separation code of “JHF.”
31.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) paragraph
  2-37 provides rules for processing involuntary release from active duty
and termination of Reserve appointment of student officers and warrant
officers attending branch orientation, familiarization courses, or Warrant
Officer Basic Course.  Paragraph 2-37a states a Reserve component officer
with less than      3 years commissioned service will be released from
active duty and discharged from his or her USAR commission when the officer
fails to meet the standards of service schools due to:  (1) misconduct; (2)
moral or professional dereliction; (3) academic or leadership deficiencies;
or (4) resigning from a course.

32.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes),
states SPD “JHF” applies to officer personnel who were involuntarily
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-37
or paragraph 4-2b(14) (failure of a course of instruction at a service
school by a Regular Army officer because of misconduct, moral or
professional dereliction).  It also states that when the SPD is “JHF” then
the narrative reason for separation will be “Failure to Complete Course of
Instruction.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Counsel contended that since participation in the actual MPOBC
graduation ceremony was not a requirement to complete the course of
instruction, the applicant’s discharge for failure to complete the course
was unlawful.

2.  The applicant was provided an MPOBC SEP, which informed him of the
requirements and procedures for course completion.  Paragraph 1d of this
SEP stated that graduation status was determined by a student’s ability to
complete all course requirements.  Paragraph 1d(2) stated that these
requirements included maintaining Army ethics and values and violations
would not be tolerated.

3.  ANNEX B of the SEP stated that graduation status for MPOBC students was
determined by their ability to successfully complete all course
requirements as stated in the SEP.  To successfully complete the MPOBC
students must, in part (paragraph 1d), demonstrate appropriate leadership
skills/attributes.

4.  Paragraph 3b of ANNEX J of the SEP stated a student could be
involuntarily eliminated from the MPOBC prior to graduation for the
following discretionary reasons:  (1) personal conduct which made
continuation in the course inappropriate; (2) failure to meet course
academic standards as outlined in the SEP; and (3) deficiency in leadership
skills commensurate with grade and branch.

5.  It is clear from the reading of ANNEXES B and J to the SEP that the
MPOBC was not completed until graduation.  Administrative necessity
requires that AERs be prepared prior to graduation so that students can be
ready to leave for their next assignment upon graduation.  It would not be
practical to require a class of students to stand by after graduation while
30, 40, or more AERs are prepared.  Therefore, the fact the applicant’s
first AER was prepared prior to graduation is not the deciding factor in
determining when or whether he completed the course.

6.  Counsel contended the notice to the applicant that he was subject to
discharge for the incident on graduation morning only specified “misconduct
and leadership deficiencies” and, because the applicant was discharged on a
basis different than the one for which he received notice, his discharge
violated both Army regulations and his right to due process.

7.  The applicant was processed for separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-37a, which states a Reserve component
officer with less than 3 years commissioned service will be released from
active duty and discharged from his or her USAR commission when the officer
fails to meet the standards of service schools due, in part, to misconduct
or leadership deficiencies.

8.  As counsel acknowledges, the notice to the applicant informed him that
he was subject to discharge for the incident on graduation morning for
“misconduct and leadership deficiencies.”  As counsel acknowledges, the
applicant was prepared to answer the charges of misconduct and leadership
deficiencies before the Faculty Board.

9.  Although the Faculty Board recommended the applicant be retained in the
Army, the Commandant, USAMPS recommended the applicant be released from
active duty and his reserve appointment be terminated due to academic or
leadership deficiencies (one of the charges the applicant was prepared to
answer).  The applicant had only marginally achieved course standards prior
to graduation day.  It appears the Commandant found that the applicant’s
leadership deficiency (even when looked upon as only poor judgment) as
evidenced by his having an excessive BAC on the morning of/evening prior to
graduation to be the deciding factor in determining that the applicant
failed, in a final evaluation, to even marginally achieve course standards.


10.  The appropriate authority approved the Commandant’s recommendation,
and the applicant was subsequently discharged under the provisions of Army
Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-37a.  It was due to a regulatory quirk
that the narrative reason for his separation was “Failure to Complete
Course of Instruction.”  It is practical to have only one SPD code and only
one narrative reason for separation when the actual basis for separation
could be one or more of four different reasons.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060016078                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070605                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20031212                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 600-8-24                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |102.09                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]