RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:					


	BOARD DATE:  3 April 2008	  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017000 


	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.  


x
	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:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the Officer Evaluation Report (OER) he received for the period 31 May 2001 through 30 May 2002 be changed from a "Center of Mass" to an "Above Center of Mass" OER and that the wording in the beginning of the first sentence in part VII.c. be changed to include the words, "LTC J__ D___ is one of the top five Lieutenant Colonels I senior rate."  The applicant further requests that his file be referred to a special selection board for reconsideration for promotion to Colonel, O-6.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was given an unjust OER as a battalion commander.  Army Regulation (AR) 623-105 requires senior raters to render evaluations based on performance of duty, rated officer's ability compared with that of his contemporaries, and assessment to perform in positions of greater responsibilities in higher grades.

3.  The unjust senior rater evaluation, the applicant states, was based solely on his senior rater's personal bias against an officer who chose to pursue a doctoral graduate school program and an assignment at the U.S. Military Academy (USMA).

4.  The applicant adds, in effect, that in May 2002, at his OER counseling, his senior rater told him, "You deserve an Above Center of Mass, but I'm not going to give it to you because you have chosen the graduate school/USMA route – and I didn't give it a minute’s thought."

5.  In support of his application, the applicant provides those documents which have been identified as Tabs A through XYZ and submitted with his application for consideration.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  In his application, the applicant has named counsel; however, counsel has remained silent insofar as the applicant's application is concerned.

2.  In connection with the applicant's OER appeal to the Special Review Board, counsel provided an eight-page Memorandum for the Special Review Board, Subject:  Legal Review of OER Appeal by LTC J_____ P. D___, dated 20 May 2006; a duty description for the Deputy Commanding General, V Corps, US Army Europe; and a biographical summary pertinent to the applicant's former senior rater.  These documents are at Tab J of the applicant's current appeal to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Record (ABCMR).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was commissioned as a Regular Army second lieutenant, on 26 May 1982, upon graduation from the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York.

2.  The applicant was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 1998.

3.  The applicant assumed command of the 1st Battalion, 27th Field Artillery, in Babenhausen, Germany, on 31 May 2000.

4.  The applicant received the first of his two OERs as battalion commander with a through date of 30 May 2001.  The evaluations made and the ratings given by the applicant's rater and intermediate rater can effectively be categorized as "outstanding."

5.  The Army values of honor, integrity, courage, loyalty, respect, selfless-service, and duty were all evaluated to have been positive.  A "Yes" answer was given in the appropriate space on the OER for each of these values.

6.  Each of the three leader attributes was rated positively and a "Yes" answer was given in the appropriate space on the OER.  Each of the three leader skills was rated to have been positive.  The nine leader actions of leadership the applicant performed were likewise all evaluated to have been positive.  A "Yes" answer was given in the appropriate space for each leadership action on the OER.  

7.  In part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), of the OER, the rater marked in the block to indicate "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote."  Since the rater's and intermediate rater's narrative comments and evaluation, in general, are not at issue, they will not be extracted and included in this Record of Proceedings.

8.  The senior rater (a Major General as the Deputy Commanding General, V Corps), in part VII.a. of the OER, evaluated the rated officer's [the applicant's] promotion potential to the next higher grade and gave him a rating of "best qualified."  The senior rater indicated that at the time, he served as senior rater to 38 officers in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, the applicant's rank.

9.  In part VII.b. of the OER, the senior rater hand-entered an "X" in the block indicating a rating of "Center of Mass."  The senior rater initialed the rating given.

10.  In part VII.c. of the OER, the senior rater's comments about the rated officer's performance were as follow:  

"LTC J__ D___ has excelled as a battalion commander.  He is an outstanding artilleryman, a leader who has improved his unit in every area, with particular success in maintenance, training, supply discipline, and Soldier and family member quality of life.  His battalion is combat ready today, the result of J__ D___'s tenacious emphasis on high quality training.  Absolutely outstanding potential.  With the upcoming year of command under his belt, J__ will be totally prepared to be an outstanding brigade commander.  Select now for Senior Service College and promote to Colonel."

11.  The applicant received the second of his two OERs as battalion commander with a through date of 30 May 2002.  The evaluations made and the ratings given by the applicant's rater and intermediate rater during this evaluation period can also be effectively categorized as being "outstanding."

12.  Since neither the rater's and intermediate rater's evaluation of the applicant are at issue, they will not be discussed further in this Record of Proceedings.

13.  The senior rater in part VII.a. of the OER evaluated the rated officer's [the applicant's] promotion potential to the next higher grade and gave him a rating of "best qualified."  The senior rater indicated that at the time, he served as senior rater to 17 officers in the rank of lieutenant Colonel, the applicant's rank.

14.  In part VII.b. of the OER, the senior rater hand-entered an "X" in the block indicating a rating of "Center of Mass."  The senior rater initialed the rating given.

15.  In part VII.c. of the OER, the senior rater's comments about the rated officer's performance were as follow:  

"LTC J__ D___'s performance as a battalion commander has been outstanding in every respect.  His unit is combat ready.  His leaders are well-trained and prepared to assume more responsibility.  The battalion's maintenance program is one of the best in V Corps.  Under LTC D____, the battalion developed a deployment mindset and is ready and clearly able to excel as part of the V Corps Strike Package. LTC D___ is a caring and concerned leader.  He does everything he can to improve the quality of life of his Soldiers and family members while inculcating a sense of family and teamwork throughout the unit.  
He is a superb officer, the type we need to lead Soldiers and young leaders in the 21st Century.  LTC D___ clearly has unlimited potential for future service.  Promote him to Colonel now.  Select him for Senior Service College and command of an artillery brigade."

16.  The comments made by the senior rater were highly complimentary of the applicant's performance of duty and his potential.  He indicated that he should be afforded consideration for selection for senior service college, promotion to Colonel, and for command of an artillery brigade.  The report was not considered adverse and therefore, it was not referred to the applicant.  A commander's inquiry was not requested nor was one conducted.

17.  The applicant, in his request to the ABCMR, submitted a copy of a biographical sketch on his senior rater.  This biographical sketch shows the senior rater was commissioned from the United States Military Academy on 7 June 1972.  He was promoted to Colonel on 1 June 1992, to Brigadier General on 1 September 1996 and to Major General on 1 January 2000.  This biographical sketch shows the senior rater had served in the highly responsible positions of battalion commander; Special Assistant to the Commanding General, 4th Infantry Division; as a brigade commander; as the Assistant Division Commander, 101st Airborne Division; as the Commanding General, 2nd Infantry Division; and as the Deputy Commanding General, V Corps.  On the date the first OER was senior rated by him, he had completed 29 years service and had been a general officer for 4 years and 9 months.  When the second OER was given the applicant, the senior rater had served on active duty for 29 years, 11months, and 24 days and had been a general officer for 5 years, 9 months.

18.  On 10 May 2005, the applicant appealed the OER to the Commander, US Army Human Resources Command (USA HRC).  The basis for his appeal was an unjust senior rater evaluation in Part VII.b., which he stated, violated the intent of AR 623-105.  The unjust senior rater evaluation he received on potential was based on his senior rater's personal bias against an officer who chose to pursue a doctoral graduate school program and an assignment to the United States Military Academy.  Instead, he stated, it should have been based on his overall potential in comparison with all other officers of the same grade who were senior rated by the same senior rater.  The report failed to provide a realistic and objective evaluation of his true potential.

19.  The applicant further stated that performance of duty was an extremely important factor in determining an officer's potential.  Potential evaluations were performance based assessments of the rated officer's ability, compared with that 
of his contemporaries to perform in positions of greater responsibilities in higher grades.  An assessment of potential applies to all officers and ignores such factors as impending release from active duty or retirement.  Consistent with this guidance, any event that occurs subsequent to the rating period, such as the rated officer's next assignment, should not be considered by the senior rater when he renders his evaluation.

20.  The applicant contends that at the time of his OER counseling for his second battalion command OER, the senior rater first discussed his outstanding duty performance; then, he stated, with respect to his potential, "You deserve an above center of mass (ACOM), but I'm not going to give it to you because you have chosen the graduate school/USMA route – and I didn't give it a minute's thought.  I will give you above center of mass words, though."

21.  The applicant states he was stunned by the remarks.  He repeated the exact words back to his senior rater to ensure there was no misunderstanding for the sole basis of his senior rater mark.  In response, his senior rater replied, "That is correct!"  The applicant states the senior rater continued by adding that he thought it would be West Point's responsibility to get him promoted.  With these words, the applicant states, it was clear to him that his senior rater had substituted his [the applicant's] decision to pursue graduate school and an assignment to the US Army Military Academy for his obligation to assess his overall potential in comparison with all other officers of the same grade.

22.  The applicant states that his senior rater gave him no legitimate reason to have evaluated his overall potential less than what he deserved.  He was never led to believe from anyone in his chain of command that his performance, or the performance of his battalion, was anything less than outstanding during the rating period, nor was he ever given any indication that his potential to perform duties and responsibilities at the next higher grade did not exceed that of the majority of the officers in his senior rater's profile's population.

23.  The OSRB reviewed the applicant's appeal of the OER and contacted the rating officials.  The rater, intermediate rater, and the senior rater were apprised of the applicant's contentions.  They were informed of the need/request for further information and each agreed to the release of a paraphrased summary of their comments, if requested under the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act, by the applicant.  Their summarized statements are as follow:

	a.  The rater stated he had nothing to add to the statements he made dated 21 July 2003 and 25 March 2006.

	b.  The intermediate rater said that although LTC D___ was not the best battalion commander he had ever observed, he thought he deserved to get one above center of mass OER in command and remain competitive for promotion to Colonel.  He believed that he and the rater had crafted (suggested) the senior rater comments with that in mind.  Other than this, the intermediate rater had nothing to add to his statement of 2 March 2005.

	c.  The senior rater said he both remembered the applicant and the OER in question because he had reflected on it quite a bit before rendering the evaluation as he had.  The senior rater stated he was very sensitive to the situation and conscious of the West Point Dynamic as he made his evaluation.  He had, he stated, relied on personal observations and on discussions he had about LTC ___'s performance with the rater and the intermediate rater.  The senior rater stated the applicant's performance had improved over the course of his battalion command period but his performance and that of his unit was not on the same level as other battalion commanders whose performance was exceptional throughout their reporting periods.  The senior rater stated that his above center of mass evaluations were pretty much restricted to those officers who were "hitting the ball out of the park from day 1."  He went on to say he had been selected for that career path himself before turning it down in favor of an assignment in support of Operation Desert Storm and therefore did not have an appreciation for those officers who did pursue that career path.  The senior rater concluded by saying that the OER he rendered the applicant was his best effort to document his evaluation of the applicant's performance and potential.

24.  After review of the OER, all available evidence and the statements made by the rating officials, and basic guidelines contained in the applicable regulation, it was determined the applicant had not provided clear and convincing evidence to justify deletion or amendment of the OER in question.  The applicant was so notified.

25.  The applicant appealed to the OSRB for reconsideration of his denied OER appeal.  On 27 July 2006, he was advised his request had been reviewed by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, and his request for reconsideration was being returned without action.  In support of his request for reconsideration, the applicant submitted:

	a.  additional statements from the rater and other parties that commented on his performance and the senior rater's responsibilities for assessing by comparing officers in the same grade;

	b.  other documents, including a Training Management Review and USR (Unit Status Report) Brief that had previously been considered by the OSRB; and

	c.  a Legal Review of OER Appeal.

26.  After reviewing the evidence and considering the applicant's request, the appeal was returned without action.  The OSRB opined that the senior rater had fulfilled his responsibilities to the Army and the applicant by accurately assessing his potential in comparison with all other officers of the same grade and component he rated; the senior rater had not failed to consider the performance of the applicant and the unit in assessing his potential in comparison to his peers; and, although the legal review might provide a determination of the legal sufficiency to dispute the conversation between the applicant and his senior rater, this review did not provide any specific and compelling information to determine that the senior rater did not provide a fair and valid evaluation of the applicant.

27.  To be eligible for reconsideration of his OER appeal, under the provisions of Chapter 6, AR 623-105, the applicant was required to submit clear, strong, and compelling evidence - not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.   The applicant was advised his first appeal did not meet this standard of proof and his subsequent appeal which was being addressed did not provide clear and convincing evidence to reverse the original OSRB decision.

28.  On 2 March 2005, the applicant's former intermediate rater submitted a memorandum of support for the applicant's OER appeal.  In this memorandum, he stated the applicant's unit had excelled during the rating period.  Maintenance and training were superb, the command climate fostered leader growth and development with an emphasis on teamwork among units, Soldiers, and families. All the accomplishments, he stated, were attributable to the applicant.  The intermediate rater added that both he and the rater had expected the senior rater to reward the applicant's outstanding performance and recognize his potential with an above center of mass OER.  In this manner, he and the rater, crafted and drafted the senior rater comments.  They both realized that a second center of mass OER for the applicant as a battalion commander would put him at risk for selection for senior service college and promotion to Colonel.

29.  On 25 March 2005, the applicant's former rater submitted a memorandum of support for the applicant's OER appeal.  In this memorandum, he stated the applicant's performance and potential as battalion commander was clearly deserving of an above center of mass OER.  He had strongly recommended and fully expected an above center of mass OER on his second command 
OER from his senior rater.  Both he and the intermediate rater had discussed the applicant's performance and potential on several occasions.  He remembers they were both convinced that the senior rater would acknowledge the applicant's accomplishments with an above center of mass OER for his final command OER.

30.  After the applicant received his counseling and his final OER from the senior rater, he went immediately to the rater's office and reported the senior rater had given him his second center of mass OER.  The applicant told him the senior rater had said he was giving him a second center of mass OER because he had been selected for graduate school and to be an instructor at the military academy.  The clear implication, he stated was that the senior rater was not going to squander an above center of mass OER on an officer whose military future would be in the academic environment.  The rater states he did not talk about this matter directly with the senior rater; however, it was and it remains clear to him today that the applicant's overall potential surpassed that of the vast majority of Lieutenant Colonels the senior rater rated.  He strongly believes the applicant deserved and should have received an above center of mass OER on his last OER as a battalion commander, regardless of his future assignment.

31.  On 15 May 2006, the applicant's former rater prepared and provided the applicant with a follow-up to his statement dated 25 March 2005.  In this statement, the rater reiterates that the applicant's overall potential and performance surpassed that of the vast majority of Lieutenant Colonels the senior rater senior rated that he [the rater] knew or had occasion to observe.  He again asserts that the applicant deserved and should have received an above center of mass OER on his last OER as a battalion commander, regardless of his future assignment.  The discussions he had with the senior rater concerning the applicant's performance and potential relative to his OER and support form supported an above center of mass OER evaluation.  Consequently, he disagrees with the senior rater's comment [made to the OSRB] that his evaluation was his best effort to document the applicant's performance and potential.

32.  Army Regulation 623-105 establishes the policies and procedures for the OER system.  Paragraphs 5-32 and 9-2 provide than an OER accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an 
officer, is presumed to be administratively correct, and to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials at the time of preparation.  Requests that an accepted OER be altered, withdrawn, or replaced will not be honored.  An exception is granted only when information which was unknown or unverified when the OER was prepared is brought to light or verified and the information is so significant that it would have resulted in a higher or lower evaluation, had it been known at the time the OER was prepared.
33.  Paragraph 4-16 discusses part VII of the OER, and explains how the SR profile is established and underscores its effect on the rated officer.  Paragraph 4-16b(5)a states, in effect, that the rated officer’s evaluation of potential by the SR is to be made by comparing the rated officer’s potential with all other officers of the same grade rated by the SR.  The Department of the Army then uses the reports to record the SR’s rating history (profile).  This profile contains all OER’s rendered by the SR and accepted as correct by the Department for the rated officer’s grade or grade grouping.  The purpose of the profile is to place a rated officer’s OER in perspective by revealing the SR’s general rating tendency.  Part VIIb will contain the SR’s comments and will address the potential evaluation and the rated officer’s performance.

34.  Paragraph 9-7 of that regulation also states that the burden of proof in an appeal of an OER rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of an OER under the regulation, the applicant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly overcomes the presumptions referred to above and that action to correct an apparent error or inaccuracy is warranted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant received the first of his two OERs as battalion commander from the same senior rater in May 2001.  The evaluations given the applicant by his rater, intermediate rater, and his senior rater can only effectively be categorized as "outstanding."  In this OER, the senior rater indicated the applicant, with an additional year of command under his belt, would be totally prepared to be an outstanding brigade commander.  He recommended the applicant be promoted to Colonel, and selected for Senior Service College.  The senior rater rated the applicant's potential as COM.

3.  The evidence shows the applicant received the second of his two OERs as battalion commander in May 2002.  The evaluations made and the ratings given by the applicant's rating chain again can only be categorized as "outstanding."  The senior rater indicated the applicant should be afforded consideration for selection for senior service college, promotion to Colonel, and for command of an artillery brigade.  The senior rater again rated the applicant's potential as COM.  Because the report was not considered adverse it was not referred to the applicant and a commander's inquiry was not requested nor was one conducted.
4.  The applicant contends the senior rater's evaluation of his potential is unjust because he based his evaluation solely on his personal bias against an officer who chose to pursue a doctoral graduate school program and an assignment at the USMA.  To support this contention, the applicant alleges that at his OER counseling, his senior rater told him he deserved an above center of mass OER, but because he had chosen to pursue graduate school and teach at the USMA he was not going to give it to him.  He allegedly added that he did not have to give the rating a second thought.  The applicant contends that the senior rater's rating of him should have been based on his overall potential in comparison with all other officers of the same grade who were senior rated by the same senior rater and the report had failed to provide a realistic and objective evaluation of his true potential.

5.  The applicant's contentions that the OER in question is unjust; that the senior rater's rating should be changed from a center of mass OER to an above center of mass OER; that the wording in the beginning of the first sentence should be changed to include the words, "LTC J___ D___ is one of the top five Lieutenant Colonels I senior rate"; and, in effect, that his senior rater did not render an evaluation based on his performance of duty, his ability compared with that of his contemporaries, and his potential to perform in positions of greater responsibility and in higher grades, have been carefully considered.  The evidence the applicant submitted does not adequately support his basic contentions of inaccuracy, injustice, and a lack of objectivity in the rating process.

6.  The evidence shows that in May 2005, the applicant appealed the OER to USA HRC.  The basis for his appeal was the same as his request to the ABCMR - an unjust senior rater evaluation which he states, violates the intent of AR 623-105.  The relief he was seeking was the same as he is now seeking from the ABCMR.

7.  The OSRB reviewed the applicant's appeal of the OER and contacted the rating officials.  The rater, intermediate rater, and the senior rater were apprised of the applicant's contentions.  The rater stated he had nothing to add to the statements he made and provided the applicant in July 2003 and in March 2005. However, in May 2006, when he became aware of the statements made by the senior rater to the OSRB representative, he provided the applicant yet another statement in which he adamantly stated he disagreed with the senior rater that his evaluation of the applicant was his best effort to document his performance and potential.



8.  The intermediate rater said that although LTC D___ was not the best battalion commander he had ever observed, he thought he deserved to get one above center of mass OER in command and remain competitive for promotion to Colonel.  He stated that he and the rater had crafted (suggested) the senior rater comments with this in mind.  Other than this, the intermediate rater had nothing to add to the statement he had written and provided the applicant in March 2005.

9.  The senior rater said he both remembered the applicant and the OER in question because he had reflected on it quite a bit before rendering the evaluation as he had.  The senior rater stated he was very sensitive to the situation and conscious of the West Point Dynamic as he made his evaluation.  He had, he stated, relied on personal observations and on discussions he had about 
LTC D___'s performance with the rater and the intermediate rater.  The senior rater stated that his above center of mass evaluations were pretty much restricted to those officers who were "hitting the ball out of the park from day 1."  The senior 
rater stated the applicant's performance had improved over the course of his battalion command period but his performance and that of his unit was not on the same level as other battalion commanders whose performance was exceptional throughout their reporting periods.  The senior rater further stated that the applicant's desire for an assignment at West Point was not a deciding factor but had been a consideration.  He went on to say that he did not view the West Point assignment as a negative.  The senior rater concluded by saying that the OER he rendered the applicant was his best effort to document his evaluation of the applicant's performance and potential.

10.  After considering all the evidence and the testimony of the members of the rating chain, the OSRB decided that the evidence offered by the applicant failed to reach the level of being clear and convincing and denied the applicant's appeal.

11.  The evidence shows that in July 2006, the applicant appealed to the OSRB for reconsideration of his denied OER appeal and after reviewing the evidence and considering the applicant's request, the appeal was returned without action.  
The OSRB opined that the senior rater had fulfilled his responsibilities to the Army and to the applicant by accurately assessing his potential and that he had not failed to consider the performance of the applicant and his unit in assessing this potential.

12.  The applicant and former members of his rating chain allege that the senior rater did not render his evaluation of the applicant's performance of duty compared to that of his contemporaries and assessment to perform in positions of greater responsibilities in higher grades.  However, the evidence shows that the senior rater, a Major General, served at every level of command from battalion command, to brigade command, to assistant division command, to division command, to deputy commanding general of a corps – all these critically responsible positions being overseas and in the Continental United States.  Having served in these positions, he would certainly have been expected to have observed and rated, intermediate rated, and senior rated his fair share of Lieutenant Colonels occupying battalion commander billets.  To believe that he was lacking in perspective and was not able to discern between what was a "center of mass" and what was an "above center of mass" performance is not realistic.  It should also be noted that at the time the applicant's first OER was rendered, the senior rater had completed 29 years of service and had been a general officer for 4 years and 9 months.  When the second OER was given the applicant, the senior rater had served on active duty for
29 years, 11 months, and 24 days and had been a general officer for 5 years and
9 months.

13.  The applicant alleges that the senior rater did not render his evaluation based on his performance of duty, his ability compared with that of his contemporaries, and did not assess his potential to perform in positions of greater responsibilities in higher grades.  The evidence shows the senior rater did indeed take in consideration all of the above.  In completing the OER, the senior rater specifically recommended the applicant for Senior Service College twice, recommended his promotion to Colonel twice, and recommended he be selected for command of an artillery brigade.  The senior rater reported that the applicant had unlimited potential for future service.  

14.  By regulation, an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of an officer is presumed to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time the OER was prepared.  In order to justify deletion or amendment of a report in this case, the appellant must produce evidence of a strong and compelling nature that clearly and convincingly establishes that the senior rater did not render an evaluation based on his performance of duty, his ability compared with that of his contemporaries, and did not adequately assess his potential to perform in positions of greater responsibility and in higher grades.

15.  The statements given the applicant by former members of his rating chain, in support of his request to the ABCMR, are highly supportive of the applicant.  These officers expressed their feelings that the applicant should have been given an above center of mass OER after completion of his second year of battalion command because he deserved to get one above center of mass OER to remain competitive for promotion to Colonel.  The intermediate rater, in his response to 
questions prompted by the representative of the OSBR, also indicated that he and the rater had "crafted" the senior rater comments with that in mind.  "The applicant should receive at least one above center of mass OER" was expressed by the intermediate rater despite the fact that he indicated to a member of the OSRB that the applicant was not the best battalion commander he had observed.

16.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




___x_____
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060017000
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED

TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
111.0000
2.
111.0100.0003
3.
111.0100.0004
4.

5.

6.