RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  5 February 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070017398 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Kenneth L. Wright

Chairperson

Mr. Antonio Uribe

Member

Mr. Ronald D. Gant

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:

1.  The applicant requests: 

	a.  reinstatement to the grade and rank of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 with a date of rank of 1 May 2006;  

	b.  correction of her Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER); and

	c.  removal of an Article 15 from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that:

	a.  she was reduced from SSG/E-6 to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 by a field grade Article 15.  Her punishment was initially suspended in September 2006 and was later vacated in October 2006.  However, the reduction was not reflected on her leave and earnings statement (LES).  She continued to receive SSG/E-6 pay despite reporting the pay issue repeatedly to her chain of command.  Her pay record was finally corrected to show SGT/E-5 in May 2007.  She further states that, in accordance with governing regulations, a suspended reduction that is later vacated is effective on the date the vacation is directed, not “almost a year later,” and that her date of rank should go back to the original date of punishment.  She further states that the vacation of the suspended punishment was not warranted because there were witnesses in the same room who can dispute the charge of disrespect that led to vacating her suspended punishment. 

	b.  her NCOER was retaliation against her because she requested assistance from the office of the Inspector General (IG), but the NCOER was written by the very people she used the open door policy to complain about.  She further adds that she refused to sign her NCOER due to administrative and substantive errors, lack of counseling dates, and non-credit for various contributions to her unit.

	c.  the Commander, Special Troops Battalion (STB), Fort Sam Houston, Texas, did not have jurisdiction over her.  She was assigned to the 228th Combat Support Hospital (CSH) and the 228th CSH Commander was the only Commander authorized to administer Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action against her.  She further adds that her own Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) and assignment Orders attest to the fact that she was assigned to the 228th CSH, not the STB.
3.  The applicant provided the following additional documentary evidence in support of her application:

	a.  DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 12 September 2006;

	b.  DA Form 2627-2 (Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 25 October 2006;

	c.  DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report), dated 5 December 2006;

	d.  Extract of Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice), dated 16 November 2005;

	e.  Two Memorandums for Record (MFR), dated 17 October 2007;

	f.  Memorandum, dated 25 October 2006, titled: Legal Errors with Article 15, submitted by Defense Counsel, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Fort Sam Houston, Texas;

	g.  Headquarters, 4th Personnel Service Battalion, Fort Carson, Colorado, Orders 003-706, dated 3 January 2001;

	h.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department and School, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, Orders 206-200, dated 25 July 2001;

	i.  DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), Reassignment Order, dated 18 December 2002;

	j.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Center and School, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, Assignment Memorandum, dated 19 December 2002;

	k.  Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 30 May 2007;

	l.  Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) dated April 2007 and May 2007;

	m.  Memorandum, dated 30 May 2007, titled: Vacation of Suspension for [Applicant], submitted by Defense Counsel, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; and

	n.  Extract of Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-9 (Military Judge’s Benchbook), dated15 September 2002. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The Board noted the applicant's request for an administrative and substantive appeal of her Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report.  However, the applicant has not exhausted the administrative remedy available to her.  She has been notified by separate correspondence regarding submission of her request to appeal the NCOER to the Commander, Human Resources Command, Indianapolis, Indiana.  As a result, the correction to the NCOER requested by the applicant is not discussed further in these Proceedings.

2.  The applicant is a Regular Army SGT/E-5 who enlisted on 25 November 1997.  She holds military occupational specialty (MOS) 68W (Health Care Specialist).  She was promoted to specialist (SPC)/E-4 on 1 June 2000, to SGT/E-5 on 1 July 2004, and to SSG/E-6 on 1 May 2006.  She served in Bosnia during the period 1 March 2002 through 1 September 2002 and in Iraq during the period 1 December 2004 through 30 November 2005.  

3.  The applicant’s awards and decorations include the Army Commendation Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award), the National Defense Service Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Non Commissioned Officer Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, and the Driver and Mechanic Badge.  

4.  On 3 January 2001, the applicant was issued an order to proceed on a permanent change of station (PCS) for assignment to the Student Company, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, effective 23 March 2001.  The applicant’s ERB shows that she arrived at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, on 16 May 2001.  

5.  On 25 July 2001, Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Detachment and School, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, published Orders 206-200. These Orders show that the applicant was assigned to Company D, 187th Medical Battalion, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  The Orders further diverted the applicant’s assignment from Student Company, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, to Student Company, Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia, effective 12 August 2001, for the purpose of attending the Practical Nurse Course from 13 August 2001 to 12 July 2002.  However, there is no indication in the applicant's records that she reported to Fort Gordon, Georgia.

6.  The applicant’s records show that she attended the Practical Nurse Course at Fort Sam Houston, Texas (not at Fort Gordon, Georgia, as stated in her Orders) during the period 27 August 2001 through 20 September 2002.  

7.  On 18 December 2002, the applicant was issued an Intra-Post Transfer reassigning her from A Company, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, to Special Troops Battalion, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, effective 1 January 2003. 

8.  On 19 December 2002, by memorandum, the noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC), Enlisted Strength Management, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, informed the Commander, 228th CSH, that the applicant was assigned to “his unit” as a Practical Nurse, effective 19 December 2002.  

9.  The applicant’s ERB shows that she was assigned to the 228th CSH as a Practical Nurse on 25 December 2002.  This ERB also shows a second entry assigning her to the 228th CSH as a Practical Nurse, effective 16 September 2003.  There is also a third entry on the applicant’s ERB that shows she was assigned to the 228th CSH as a Litter Bearer, effective 29 October 2004.  The 228th CSH is a U.S. Army Reserve unit, subordinate to the 807th Medical Command.  

10.  The Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) provides Professional Filler System (PROFIS) requirements to the 228th CSH and other deployable units in order to increase their operational and personnel tempo.  PROFIS Soldiers support the Active Component, Multi-Component, and Reserve Component units. During mobilization or a contingency operation, PROFIS personnel (active duty personnel) are pulled out of Army hospitals or military treatment facilities (MTFs) to join the combat medical unit they have been assigned to.  The applicant in this case was a PROFIS Soldier and served as the active duty NCOIC of all U.S. Army Reserve Health Care Specialists within the 228th CSH.

11.  The applicant’s records reveal a history of her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the UCMJ on 12 September 2006 for disrespecting a superior commissioned officer by raising her voice, telling him she did not have to listen to him, and pointing her finger at him, on or about 19 July 2006; disobeying a lawful order on 19 July 2006; being drunk and disorderly, conduct that brought discredit upon the Armed Forces, on or about 19 July 2006; wrongfully exposing herself (midsection) in an indecent manner to public view, on or about 19 July 2006; and being disrespectful in language and deportment toward a superior noncommissioned officer, on or about 8 March 2006.  Her punishment consisted of reduction to SGT/E-5 (suspended until 11 November 2006), forfeiture of $1,342.00 pay, 45 days of extra duty (suspended until 11 November 2006), and an oral reprimand.

12.  On 12 October 2006, several noncommissioned officers were in the applicant’s office laughing, using profane language, and making jokes.  A Commissioned Officer heard the conversation and came into the applicant’s office to participate.  The group started having an ethnic conversation about Latin Americans.  The applicant and her witness state that everyone was using casual language and laughing about the comments.  The Commissioned Officer explained how he made people feel ignorant when they mistook him for being one ethnic group versus another.  Again, the applicant and her witness state that everyone laughed.  The applicant responded with the comment, “Sir, that is being an asshole.”  Everyone laughed afterwards and the Commissioned Officer stayed in the office and continued to participate in the conversation.  He later asked the applicant’s first line supervisor to counsel her about disrespecting him with her language and concluded by giving the applicant a counseling statement himself, recommending her for UCMJ action.

13.  In a self-authored memorandum, dated 17 October 2006, the applicant clarified the incident that took place on 12 October 2006 and that led to vacating her suspended punishment.  She stated that it was an innocent and joking conversation among several Soldiers in an office about race, when an officer walked in and joined the conversation and was offended by a remark made by the applicant.

14.  In another statement, dated 17 October 2006, another Soldier who witnessed the events of 12 October 2006 also stated that he thought the whole incident was a funny conversation among several Soldiers in an office and that he personally did not feel there was any intentional disrespect by the applicant toward the officer.

15.  On 25 October 2006, after reviewing the proposed vacation of the applicant’s suspended punishment, by memorandum addressed to the Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, the applicant's Defense Counsel, Trial Defense Service, noted that there may have been an issue of “divestiture” toward a commissioned officer.  That is because he participated in the profane conversation, he voluntarily relinquished his right to be respected as an officer.  The Defense Counsel further listed the five elements for the offense of disrespect as outlined in the Manual for Courts-Martial and noted that all circumstances have to be taken into consideration when determining whether "language only” is considered disrespectful. 

16.  On 25 October 2006, the suspended punishment of reduction to SGT/E-5 and 45 days of extra duty imposed on the applicant on 12 September 2006 was vacated and the vacated portions of the punishment were ordered duly executed. Vacation was based on disrespecting a superior commissioned officer on 12 October 2006.

17.  The applicant’s May 2007 LES shows that the applicant’s grade change from SSG/E-6 to SGT/E-5 and the forfeiture of pay took effect, some seven months after the Article 15 hearing, during the month of May 2007, but with an effective date of 12 September 2006.

18.  On 30 May 2007, by memorandum, the applicant's Defense Counsel, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, informed the Commander, 228th CSH that he found a serious error in the applicant’s 12 September 2006 Article 15: lack of jurisdiction.  Since the applicant was assigned to the 228th CSH from 2002, the appropriate commander for purposes of Article 15 punishment with respect to the applicant was the commander, 228th CSH, not the STB commander.  The Defense Counsel also stated that the Article 15 was thus invalid and as the proper authority with nonjudicial punishment jurisdiction, the 228th CSH commander could proceed to correct the error.  The Defense Counsel further stated the applicant’s punishment resulted in a clear injustice to her and requested that the 228th CSH commander set aside the Article 15 imposed on the applicant and restore her to the status she had prior to the date of the invalid Article 15.  

19.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice and implements the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).  It states, in pertinent part, that a commander should use nonpunitive administrative measures to the fullest extent to further the efficiency of the command before resorting to NJP under the UCMJ.  Use of NJP is proper in all cases involving minor offenses in which nonpunitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate.  If it is clear that NJP will not be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, more stringent measures must be taken.  Prompt action is essential for NJP to have the proper corrective effect.  NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldier’s record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial.
20.  Paragraph 3-6 of this regulation addresses the filing of an Article 15.  It states, in pertinent part, that a commander’s decision whether to file a record of NJP on the performance section of a Soldier’s OMPF is as important as the decision relating to the imposition of NJP itself.  In making a filing determination, the imposing commander must weigh carefully the interests of the Soldier’s career against those of the Army to produce and advance only the most qualified personnel for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility.  In this regard, the imposing commander should consider the Soldier’s age, grade, total service (with particular attention to the Soldier’s recent performance and past misconduct), and whether the Soldier has more than one record of NJP directed for filing in the restricted section.  However, the interests of the Army are compelling when the record of NJP reflects unmitigated moral turpitude or lack of integrity, patterns of misconduct, or evidence of serious character deficiency or substantial breach of military discipline.  In such cases, the record should be filed in the performance section.  If a record of NJP has been designated for filing in a Soldier’s restricted section, the Soldier’s OMPF will be reviewed to determine if the restricted section contains a previous record of NJP. In those cases in which a previous DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ) that has not been wholly set aside has been filed in the restricted section and in which prior to that punishment the Soldier was in the rank of SGT or higher, the present DA Form 2627 will be filed in the performance section.  The filing should be recorded on the present DA Form 2627 in block 11. The Soldier concerned will be informed of the filing of the DA Form 2627 in the performance section.

21.  Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation prescribes the authority to impose NJP.  It states, in pertinent part, that unless otherwise specified in this regulation, or if authority to impose NJP has been limited or withheld by a superior commander, any commander is authorized to exercise the disciplinary powers conferred by Article 15.  The term commander, as used here, means a commissioned or warrant officer who, by virtue of that officer’s grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over a military organization or prescribed territorial area that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a command.  The term imposing commander refers to the commander or other officer who actually imposes the NJP commands include companies, troops, and batteries; numbered units and detachments; missions; Army elements of unified commands and joint task forces; Service schools; and area commands.  Commands also include, in general, any other organization of the kind mentioned above, for example, a provisional unit designated under AR 220–5, the commander of which is the one looked to by superior authority as the individual chiefly responsible for maintaining discipline in that organization.  Thus, an infantry company, whether or not separate or detached, is considered to be a command.  However, an infantry platoon that is part of a company and is not separate or detached is not considered to be a command.  Although a commissioned or warrant officer exercising command is usually designated as the commander, this position may be designated by various other titles having the same official connotation; for example, commandant, chief of mission, or superintendent.  Whether an officer is a commander is determined by the duties he or she performs, not necessarily by the title of the position occupied.  A multi-service commander or officer in charge, to whose command members of the Army are assigned or attached, may impose NJP upon such Soldiers.  A multi-service commander or officer in charge, alternatively, may designate one or more Army units and will for each such Army unit designate an Army commissioned or warrant officer as commanding officer for the administration of discipline under the UCMJ, Article 15.  A multi-service commander or officer in charge, when imposing NJP upon a military member of his or her command, will apply the provisions of this regulation.

22.  Unless such authority is limited or withheld by superior competent authority, a commander may impose punishment under Article 15 on commissioned officers, warrant officers, and other military personnel of that commander’s command, except cadets of the U.S. Military Academy (USMA).  For the purpose of Article 15, military personnel are considered to be “of the command” of a commander if they are assigned to an organization commanded by that commander; or affiliated with the command (by attachment, detail, or otherwise) under conditions, either expressed or implied, that indicate that the commander of the unit to which affiliated to exercise administrative or disciplinary authority over them.  Under similar circumstances, a commander may be assigned territorial command responsibility so that all or certain military personnel in the area will be considered to be of the command for the purpose of Article 15.  To determine if an individual is of the command of a particular commanding officer, refer first to those written or oral orders or directives that affect the status of the individual.  If orders or directives do not expressly confer authority to administer NJP to the commander of the unit with which the Soldier is affiliated or present (as when, for example, they contain no provision attaching the Soldier “for disciplinary purposes”), consider all attendant circumstances, such as the phraseology used in the orders; where the Soldier slept, ate, was paid, performed duty; the duration of the status; and other similar factors.  If orders or directives include such terms as “attached for administration of military justice,” or simply “attached for administration,” the individual so attached will be considered to be of the command of the commander of the unit of attachment for the purpose of Article 15.



23.  Whether to impose punishment and the nature of the punishment are the sole decisions of the imposing commander.  However, commanders are encouraged to consult with their NCOs on the appropriate type, duration, and limits of punishment to be imposed.  Additionally, as NCOs are often in the best position to observe a Soldier undergoing punishment and evaluate daily performance and attitude, their views on clemency should be given careful consideration.  The grade from which reduced must be within the promotion authority of the imposing commander or of any officer subordinate to the imposing commander.  For the purposes of this regulation, the imposing commander or any subordinate commander has “promotion authority” within the meaning of Article 15 if the imposing commander has the general authority to appoint to the grade from which reduced or to any higher grade.  When a person is reduced in grade as a result of an unsuspended reduction, the date of rank in the grade to which reduced is the date the punishment of reduction was imposed. If the reduction is suspended either on or after the punishment was imposed, or is set aside or mitigated to forfeiture, the offender’s date of rank in the grade held before the punishment was imposed remains unchanged.  If a suspension of the reduction is vacated, the offender’s date of rank in the grade to which reduced as a result of the vacation action is the date the punishment was originally imposed, regardless of the date the punishment was suspended or vacated.

24.  The date of imposition of NJP is the date items 4 through 6, DA Form 2627, or items 1 through 3, DA Form 2627–1, as appropriate, are signed by the imposing commander.  This action normally will be accomplished on the day punishment is imposed.  Unsuspended punishments of reduction and forfeiture of pay take effect on the date imposed.  Other unsuspended punishments take effect on the date they are imposed, unless the imposing commander prescribes otherwise.  In those cases where the execution of the punishment legitimately must be delayed (for example, the Soldier is hospitalized, placed on quarters, authorized emergency leave or while on a brief period of TDY or a brief field problem), the execution of the punishment should begin immediately thereafter. The delay in executed punishment should not exceed 30 days. Once the Soldier has submitted an appeal, including all pertinent allied documents, the appeal normally should be decided within 5 calendar days.  A suspended reduction, later vacated, is effective on the date the vacation is directed.

25.  Ordinarily, punishment is suspended to grant a probation period during which time a Soldier may show that a remission of the remaining suspended punishment is deserved.  An executed punishment of reduction or a forfeiture may be suspended only within a period of 4 months after the date imposed. Suspension of punishment may not be for a period longer than 6 months from the suspension date.  Further misconduct by the Soldier, within the period of the suspension, may be grounds for vacation of the suspended portion of the punishment.  Unless otherwise stated, an action suspending a punishment automatically includes a condition that the Soldier not violate any punitive Article of the UCMJ.

26.  A commander may vacate any suspended punishment, provided the punishment is of the type and amount the commander could impose and where the commander has determined that the Soldier has committed misconduct (amounting to an offense under the UCMJ) during the suspension period. The commander is not bound by the formal rules of evidence before courts-martial and may consider any matter, including unsworn statements, the commander reasonably believes to be relevant to the misconduct.  There is no appeal from a decision to vacate a suspension.  Unless the vacation is prior to the expiration of the stated period of suspension, the suspended punishment is remitted automatically without further action. 

27.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File, the Military Personnel Records Jacket, the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records.  Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the Official Military Personnel File it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by selected agencies such as the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contention of the applicant, that her Article 15 should be set aside and that the Article 15 should be removed from her record due to issues of jurisdiction, and the supporting evidence submitted were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.  

2.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant received an Article 15 on 12 September 2006.  The Commander, Special Troops Battalion, suspended that portion of the applicant’s punishment that pertained to her reduction in grade and partial forfeiture of pay.  On 25 October 2006, her suspended reduction was vacated.  She went before the Commander, U.S. Army Garrison and was allowed to seek trial defense services (although not required by regulation when a suspended punishment is vacated). Copies of the Article 15 and the supplementary action to vacate the suspension were given to her unit for proper action to adjust her pay.

3.  The applicant’s contention that it took her unit almost a year to effect her reduction and forfeiture and that this error deserves relief is without merit.  Although her alleged efforts in seeking assistance to ensure the correct grade was shown on her finance records are noted, the fact that the reduction in grade and forfeiture of pay were delayed and did not take place until a few months after the vacation of the suspended Article 15 punishment is far from ideal but does not excuse her misconduct or make the Article 15 invalid.  Additionally, when a Soldier is reduced in grade as a result of a suspension that is later vacated, the Soldier's date of rank in the grade to which reduced as a result of the vacation action is the date the punishment was originally imposed (12 September 2006), regardless of the date the punishment was suspended or vacated (25 October 2006).  

4.  Evidence of record shows that the Commander, 807th MEDCOM, the higher headquarters to the 228th CSH, had issued a memorandum attaching certain listed active duty personnel of the 228th CSH rear detachment to the STB for administration and UCMJ actions during the 228th CSH's deployment to Iraq.  

5.  The evidence of record further confirms that the commander administering the Article 15 proceedings determined the applicant committed the offenses in question during a closed Article 15 hearing after considering all the evidence submitted by her.  By law and regulation, before finding a Soldier guilty during Article 15 proceedings, the commander must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Soldier committed the offenses.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant waived her right to a trial by court-martial and opted for a closed Article 15 hearing.  She requested the opportunity to present matters in rebuttal at the hearing and to have someone speak on her behalf.  After considering the available evidence, the applicant's commander found her guilty of the majority of the alleged misconduct. 

6.  As stated in paragraph 3-8 of Army Regulation 27-10, Soldiers are “of the command” if they are “affiliated with the command by attachment, detail, or otherwise” under conditions, either expressed or implied, that indicate that the “commander” of the unit to which affiliated and the “command” of the unit to which assigned are to exercise administrative and disciplinary authority over them.  There is sufficient evidence that the STB/USAG provided administrative support to the 228th CSH Soldiers, including the applicant and one of her subordinates who a year earlier was court-martialed by the STB Commander, and the applicant was indeed “of the STB's command” by the intent of the 807th MEDCOM commander’s memorandum. 


7.  The applicant’s contention that her vacated punishment was a clear injustice, based on the totality of the circumstances during the 12 October 2006 incident, is also without any merit.  The applicant was originally given a suspended punishment to allow her to adjust her behavior, straighten out her actions, and “Soldier her way through it.”  She chose otherwise.  Although not required when a suspension is vacated, she was given the opportunity to seek advice from the Trial Defense Service at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and had a hearing before the Garrison Commander.  A clear injustice means that there was an unwaived legal or factual error that clearly and affirmatively injured her rights.  The applicant was clearly found guilty and at no time was she deprived of any due process.  

8.  Notwithstanding the applicant's otherwise excellent overall record of service, the ABCMR governing regulation requires the applicant to carry the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence.  The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to justify removal of the Article 15 and has not met the required burden of proof. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__klw___  __au____  __rdg___  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.




							Kenneth L. Wright
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.