IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	         1 September 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20080012500 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that a determination be made that his disenrollment and discharge from the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) was unfair and unjust, that his ROTC scholarship debt be remitted/cancelled, that all monies collected for that debt be returned, and that his grade be changed for that course on his college transcripts.  He also requests that the investigating officer (IO) be required to disclose the name of the cadre member who provided false information regarding his attendance at the 2005 Viking Quest exercises.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was unjustly disenrolled and discharged from the ROTC Program and he is being unjustly required to repay the educational expenses he received from the program despite the fact that his rights were violated and the disenrollment was not accomplished in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.  He goes on to state that he has 24 issues that need resolution and which show that he should not have to repay the educational expenses he received prior to being unjustly removed from the ROTC Program.  He goes on to state that his issues are:

	a.  that his procedural due process rights were violated when the professor of military science (PMS) failed to provide him with a true and correct copy of the Record of Proceedings, the re-submitted disenrollment packet, and a list of the exhibits being used against him;

	b.  that his disenrollment was unfair, unjust, and based on a factually and legally deficient disenrollment packet caused by the IO failing to summarize the testimony of himself and his witness and then by failing to submit the recorded tape of the disenrollment proceedings;

	c.  that the IO failed to properly prepare and accurately report the Record of Proceedings in violation and disregard of Army regulations causing the applicant to be involuntarily, illegally, unfairly, and unjustly disenrolled on the basis of a flawed and defective disenrollment packet;

	d.  that the ROTC command failed to provide him counseling or remedial physical training (PT) prior to initiating disenrollment proceedings in violation of Army regulations governing ROTC Cadet retention and therefore disenrollment proceedings should not have been initiated on the grounds of failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) and he should not have been disenrolled for failure to pass the APFT;

	e.  that it was unfair, unjust, and illegal for the IO, Cadet Command, and the Department of the Army to use, consider, or make a part of the applicant's disenrollment packet the 26 February 2004 and 20 March 2004 counseling statements because they were given to him while he was on a leave of absence and were illegally given in violation of Army Regulation 145-4, chapter 4, section 4-4(o);

	f.  that the 3 June 2004 Memorandum for Cadet is not a counseling statement and should not have been included in the disenrollment packet or considered by the IO, Cadet Command, or Department of the Army because it references the illegal counseling statements given to him while he was on a leave of absence;

	g.  that he is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance in the amount of $1,350.00 for subsistence pay that he was entitled to receive for the months of April, May, and June 2004 after being reinstated to cadet status;

	h.  that the ROTC command breached the ROTC contract by requiring him to make a minimum passing score of 77 points in each APFT event to attend the National Advance Leadership Camp (NALC) in violation of the terms of the contract which only required him to attain a minimum of score of 60 points in each event, as required of active duty Soldiers.  Accordingly, since the ROTC command breached the contract, the government should not be allowed to recover any educational expenses for breach of contract;

	i.  that the IO violated the applicant's due process rights and caused him to be disenrolled by failing to document, investigate, and report that he had presented a valid factual dispute alleging falsification of the APFT scorecard; 

	j.  that the 30 June 2005 APFT scores recorded as 1 July 2005, which precluded his attendance at NALC, was invalidated because the test administrator was also the scorer in direct violation of Field Manual 21-20, chapter 14 (Army Physical Fitness Test), subparagraph - Test Administration, which specifically prohibits the test administrator from also being the scorer;

	k.  that the 11 July 2005 Memorandum for Record (MFR) submitted by Major K____W____ is factually incorrect and was written to discredit the applicant and hide negligence on the part of that officer and the IO's failure to document, investigate, and report this allegation causing the disenrollment packet to contain factual and legal omissions;

	l.  that the ROTC command breached the Army's specific agreement under the ROTC contract to train the applicant when the command failed to provide him with advanced military training in the military science level IV classes knowing that the training was necessary to meet the pre-commissioning military qualification standard one (MQS-1) that is required of all officers to begin military service, and by the command's action of requiring the applicant to continuously train with level III students while enrolled on paper in level IV classes and by untruthfully telling him that in order to retain his scholarship, he was required to repeat the level III classes despite the fact that he had passed the same classes with grades of an "A" and a "B" in their normal progression;

	m.  that the IO committed procedural error by failing to allow the applicant to dispute the validity of the debt and the financial assistance record and by also failing to document, investigate, or report that the applicant had presented these disputes in the cadet matters for consideration;

	n.  that the PMS/convening authority should not have initiated disenrollment proceedings against the applicant for failing to meet the height and weight requirements because the PMS had not counseled him, referred him for a medical evaluation, or placed him in a weight control program in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9;

	o.  that the government is not entitled to reimbursement of advanced educational expenses because the board of officers hearing did not conform to the requirements of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005, which requires that there must be a finding that any breach of contract on the part of the cadet was voluntary or a result of misconduct;

	p.  that the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 could not cure the IO's failure to make a finding that any act or omission to act by the applicant was voluntary 
and a breach of the ROTC contract because the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 was not the finder of fact at the disenrollment hearing, did not prepare the report of proceedings or summary of hearing, and waived his/her authority under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005, to remand the disenrollment action back to the IO or another designated member of the Armed Forces, or to a civilian employee to investigate the facts, hear evidence by the applicant and other parties, and make a finding that any acts or failures to act by the applicant were voluntary or the result of misconduct;

	q.  that it was a procedural error for the PMS to allow an unauthorized individual to review and comment on the applicant's disenrollment packet and then fail to provide the applicant with a copy of the notice letter to the university or the resubmitted packet;

	r.  that the applicant's discharge order number 331-1 should be amended to delete the authority of Army Regulation 145-1, paragraph 3-42a(16) off the form because there was no finding that he had breached his contract;

	s.  that it was unfair, unjust, and a violation of regulations for the PMS to have failed to provide the applicant with a copy of the applicant's unclassified training records after repeated requests for the documents;

	t.  that it was unfair, unjust, and a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), section 107 for the IO to have failed to report the name of the cadre member who made false statements to impede the investigation when the applicant asked for a formal investigation pursuant to UCMJ, section 107;

	u.  that the applicant's 2005 APFT scorecard should be corrected to reflect that the 30 June 2005 APFT was incorrectly reported as 1 July 2005 and the diagnostic test, dated 28 June 2005, reported as test score eight should be corrected to show that it was administered on 27 July 2005 and not 28 July 2005 and should be removed completely from the APFT scorecard because it was a diagnostic test;

	v.  that the IO's failure to document, investigate, or report that the applicant had submitted 52 matters for consideration caused the applicant to be disenrolled on the basis of a deficient disenrollment packet and therefore, the government is not entitled to reimbursement of any funds under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005;

	w.  that the ROTC command should be directed to change the letter grade of "F" on the applicant's transcript in military science 303 National Leaders Advance Camp to a "W" for withdrawn and the applicant's grade point average should be  recalculated by the university because the applicant was withdrawn prior to any participation at camp and the letter grade of "F" was not given by the camp director; and

   x.  that the IO should be directed to disclose the name of the cadre member who knowingly provided false information to the IO that he had not attended the 2005 Viking Quest exercises after the applicant had repeatedly requested unclassified documents to prove that the APFT scorecard contained falsifications.

3.  The applicant provides three ring-bound binders containing his arguments and supporting documents.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant's ROTC debt be cancelled/remitted and that all monies collected to date be returned to the applicant.

2.  Counsel states that the applicant's application and supporting documents amply advance the applicant's contentions and substantially reflect the probative facts needed for equitable review.

3.  Counsel provides no additional evidence or argument.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 30 September 2002, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) for a period of 8 years and assigned to the USAR Control Group (ROTC) at Grambling State University.

2.  The applicant's DA 597-3 (Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract), initiated on 19 August 2002, indicates that the applicant would receive scholarship benefits for a period of 2 academic years for tuition and educational fees up to an annual amount of $17,000.00, book and laboratory fees of $600.00, and a monthly subsistence fee of $350.00.  As part of the agreement, he agreed that he would remain enrolled in and successfully complete the ROTC Program, including NALC and all training as prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or his/her designee, as a prerequisite for commissioning.  He also agreed that he would meet and maintain the APFT standard and the screening weight or body fat percentage required by the Army Weight Control Program as required of active duty Soldiers each year and prior to attendance at NALC.  He further acknowledged that commissioning eligibility standards, including the APFT and the Army Weight Control Program standards, are subject to change and that he 
must keep himself informed of such changes through contact with the PMS and that failure to maintain the weight control and physical fitness requirements may subject him to disenrollment from the ROTC Program.  It also provided that if he was disenrolled from the ROTC program for any reason, the Secretary of the Army could order him to reimburse the United States the dollar amount plus interest that bears the same ratio to the total cost of the scholarship financial assistance provided by the United States to the cadet as the un-served portion of active duty bears to the total period of active duty the cadet agreed to serve or was ordered to serve.

2.  The applicant’s DA Form 597-3 also states that if he were called to active duty for breach of contract under the provisions of paragraph 8, he would be ordered to active duty in an enlisted status for 3 years if the breach occurred during Military Science III or for 4 years if the breach occurred during Military Science IV.

3.  A review of the available evidence reveals that the applicant was counseled on at least three separate occasions during the period 13 March 2003 to 24 March 2004 regarding his failure to meet the minimum standards of the APFT.  He was counseled regarding his inability to pass the 2-mile run portion of the APFT and his lack of participation in scheduled fitness and special fitness training.  He was also advised that he was required to achieve a minimum standard of 77 points in each event in order to attend the NALC.  He was further advised that his class and lab participation had been marginal.  In each instance he concurred with the counseling sessions.  The available evidence also contains four DA Forms 5500-R (Body Fat Content Worksheet) covering the period 2 February 2005 to 30 June 2005, which indicate that the applicant was not in compliance with Army Standards.

4.  On 3 June 2004, a memorandum was dispatched to the applicant from the commander which indicates that a decision was rendered on 6 April 2004 that he was considered medically qualified for retention and commissioning when otherwise qualified and that he was reinstated at that time.  He was further advised that in order to maintain his status as a contracted cadet he must adhere to a list of eight standards, which included passing the APFT, meeting the height and weight standards, meeting all of the prerequisites to attend the NALC in the summer of 2005, and participating in all Army ROTC sponsored training events, and that failure to meet and maintain any of those requirements listed may result in his disenrollment.

5.  On 11 July 2005, an MFR was prepared by the administrative officer of the applicant's ROTC detachment which indicates that the applicant took his APFT on 30 June 2005 and again failed the run portion of the test.  He was advised at that time that he would not be able to attend NALC.  

6.  A review of the five scorecards provided by the applicant indicates that during the period of February 2005 through 1 July 2005, the applicant never passed an APFT.  The minimum score required for him to attain a passing score of "60" in the 2-mile run was 16 minutes and 36 seconds (16:36).  In two of the tests, he did not complete the run portion of the APFT. 

7.  On 19 July 2005, the applicant's commander dispatched a memorandum to the applicant notifying him that he was initiating action to disenroll him from the ROTC Program due to his failure to maintain a 3.0 grade point average in all ROTC courses during the Spring semester of 2005, his failure to meet the requirements of the Army Weight Control Program, and his failure to pass the APFT, which disqualified him from eligibility to attend the NLAC.  He further advised the applicant that he was being placed on a leave of absence pending disenrollment and that he could request a hearing by a board of officers or an IO, or that he could waive his right to a hearing.  Additionally, he was advised that he could submit written statements in his own behalf and that he could be required to repay scholarship benefits in the amount of $18,326.00 or be called to active duty in an enlisted status.  He was provided an option statement to complete and return.

8.  On 27 July 2005, he completed his option statement and requested that a board of officers or IO be appointed so that he might personally appear and respond regarding his disenrollment and scholarship debt.  He also elected to decline an expeditious call to active duty.  (emphasis added)  Additionally, he noted on the form that there were no supporting documents attached to the disenrollment action as indicated by the original notification.  The attachments/enclosures were subsequently forwarded to the applicant on 1 September 2005.

9.  On 25 October 2005, a commissioned officer (captain) assigned to the ROTC command at Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi was appointed as the IO to hear evidence and determine if the applicant should be disenrolled for failure to maintain height and weight standards and continuous failure to pass the APFT.

10.  On 15 November 2005, the IO dispatched a memorandum to the applicant informing him that a hearing would be held at the Grambling State University ROTC Department to hear evidence and determine his suitability for retention in the Army ROTC Program.  He was further advised that the IO would endeavor to 
arrange for the presence of any witnesses the applicant may desire and that after completion of the board, he (the applicant) would be given the opportunity to rebut the findings and recommendations.  He was also advised that the findings and recommendations are advisory only and that the report with any rebuttal would be forwarded to the Commanding General of Cadet Command for a final determination.

11.  The hearing commenced at 1400 hours on 15 December 2005 in the Grambling State University, ROTC Conference Room with the applicant, his mother, a witness for the applicant, a recorder (second lieutenant), and the IO present.  The hearing lasted until 1630 hours and on 16 December 2005, the IO prepared his findings and recommendations.

12.  The IO found that the applicant entered into a valid ROTC Scholarship contract on 19 August 2002, that he received educational assistance in the amount of $18,326.00 that constituted a valid debt to the United States Government, that the applicant had failed to maintain a 3.0 in all ROTC courses during the Spring Semester of 2005 (however, he had previously passed the same courses with grades of "A" and "B"), that he had repeatedly failed to meet the requirements of the Army Weight Control Program (however, he had only received one counseling statement in that regard and was not provided with any nutritional guidance from the cadre in that regard), and that he had repeatedly failed to pass the APFT.

13.  The IO recommended that the applicant not be retained as a scholarship cadet, that he be disenrolled based on his failure to meet Army Weight Control standards and his failure to pass the APFT as required, that he be released from his ROTC contractual obligation, that he not be ordered to active duty to repay the funds he received, and that he should be required to repay the scholarship funds received.

14.  The findings and recommendations were approved by the appointing official on 17 January 2006.  The commander provided the applicant with the DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Board of Officers) together with all enclosures and exhibits and informed him that he had until 31 January 2006 to submit a rebuttal.

15.  On 17 January 2006, an official at Grambling State University (Criminal Justice Department) reviewed the Report of Proceedings and indicated that she had no comments to add to the report.


16.  On 30 January 2006, the applicant submitted a 120-page rebuttal in which he disputed the DA Form 1574, the grounds for disenrollment, and the validity of the debt as alleged.  His rebuttal is essentially the same as his application to this Board.

17.  The recommendation for disenrollment was forwarded through the chain of command to the Army Cadet Command at Fort Monroe, VA and on 20 November 2006, the Commanding General approved the applicant's disenrollment and discharge from the ROTC Program due to his failure to pass the APFT.  The applicant was advised that he was required to repay the cost of educational assistance provided by the Army in the amount of $18,326.00.

18.  The applicant submitted a 14-page appeal (with enclosures) of his Disenrollment and Discharge and disputed the validity of the debt on 16 December 2006.

19.  On 19 March 2007, the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 reviewed the applicant's case and the appeal of his case and determined that the debt was valid and directed the recoupment of $18,326.00 for educational expenses paid by the Army and any interest and penalties that may have accrued since the debt  was established.

20.  On 2 April 2007, the applicant was notified by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, Directorate of Military Personnel Management of the decision in his case and was advised that he could apply to this Board.  His application was received on 18 July 2008.

21.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Cadet Command which opines, in pertinent part, that Field Manual 21-20 (Fitness Training) provides that a unit can set performance goals and that the applicant did not meet those goals.  Additionally, the disenrollment file along with the applicant's appeal and rebuttals was reviewed by two legal authorities and was determined to be legally sufficient for disenrollment and monetary recoupment based on his failure to meet the APFT requirements.  However, the officials at the Cadet Command recommended that the Board request the University/ROTC battalion change his grade from an "F" to a "W." 

22.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  The applicant provided an 11-page rebuttal with supporting documents in which he contends, in effect, that the Cadet Command has continued to both knowingly and intentionally disregard its own established regulations in a direct attempt to cover up the truth surrounding his allegations of falsification of documents, violations of retention regulations, fraud upon the proceedings, and negligence.  He goes on to state that the only option he was offered by the Commanding General of Cadet Command was to repay the debt, that the debt was not established pursuant to the regulatory mandates and therefore is invalid, that there was no voluntary failure or misconduct on his part and no evidence to show such, that officials in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 falsified the findings of the Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 because he knew that the findings did not conform to the provisions of law and did not meet the prerequisites for reimbursement to the government, that the Assistant Chief of Staff, G1 did not consider all of his matters for consideration and only considered the recommendation for recoupment of scholarship monies, that the fact that he was not counseled or referred to a remedial PT program was not considered, that his allegation of falsification of his APFT scorecard was not addressed, that he was illegally required to repeat Level III classes while enrolled in Level IV classes, that he was not provided with an unedited tape of the proceedings, that a university official was allowed to review the proceedings, that the financial assistance record is inaccurate, that the Cadet Command did not address all of his issues, that some of his issues are legally sufficient to substantiate his claim of unfair and unjust disenrollment, that he was held to a higher standard than he contracted for, that his APFT was invalid because one person served as both administrator and scorer, and that he was required to take the APFT under adverse weather conditions.  The applicant goes on to state that he desires an opinion from this Board on each of the issues he has raised and total relief in his case.

23.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 2005(a)(3), states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary concerned may require, as a condition to the Secretary providing advanced education assistance to any person, that such person enter into a written agreement with the Secretary concerned under the terms of which such person shall agree that if such person, voluntarily or because of misconduct, fails to complete the period of active duty specified in the agreement, or fails to fulfill any term or condition prescribed by the Secretary to protect the interest of the United States, such person will reimburse the United States in an amount that bears the same ratio to the total costs of advanced education provided such person as the un-served portion of active duty bears to the total period of active duty such person agreed to serve.

24.  Field Manual 21-20 provides that service schools, agencies, and units may set performance goals which are above the minimum APFT standards in accordance with their mission.  The minimum standard for successful completion of the APFT is 60 points for each event.  Individuals who are in the age group of 22 to 26 must complete the 2-mile run in 16 minutes and 36 seconds (16:36) in order to attain the minimum qualifying score of 60 in that event.

25.  Army Regulation 145-1 (Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Program) provides, in pertinent part, that a scholarship cadet may be disenrolled only by the Commanding General, Army Cadet Command.  Cadets may be disenrolled for breach of contract.  Breach of contract is defined as any act, performance, or nonperformance on the part of a student that breaches the terms of the contract regardless of whether the act, performance, or nonperformance was done with the specific intent to breach the contract or whether the student knew that the act, performance or nonperformance breaches the contract.  Cadets may also be disenrolled for failure to meet the same requirements of the Army Weight Control Program and the APFT as required of active duty Soldiers prior to the end of the last school term of the military science III year.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was unjustly and unfairly disenrolled from the ROTC Program for an APFT failure because he was held to a higher standard than active duty Soldiers has been noted and found to lack merit.

2.  Although the applicant was counseled that he was required to achieve a minimum score of 77 points in each event, he was deemed a failure based on his failure to attain the minimum score of 60 points in each event as required of active duty Soldiers.  Simply put, the applicant did not attain the minimum score required of active duty Soldiers and thus did not qualify for attendance at the NALC.

3.  It is also noted that the applicant was counseled regarding his failure to participate in scheduled fitness and special fitness training which is indicative that training was being conducted and that the applicant was not taking advantage of the training that was available to him.  While the applicant places fault on the ROTC Command for not requiring him to participate in such training, in actuality, it was the applicant's responsibility to show up when training was being conducted, especially since he was aware that he had problems passing the APFT.

4.  The bottom line in this case is that the applicant was disenrolled from the ROTC Program due to his inability to pass the APFT and he has failed to show through the evidence of record and the evidence submitted with his application that he actually could pass the APFT at the minimum standard of 60 points in each event.

5.  While he contends that the APFT he was administered was invalid because one person conducted the entire APFT and it was conducted in adverse weather conditions, it is not uncommon for one person to grade one person in order to fulfill a requirement to attend a school or for promotion board purposes when there is no APFT scheduled.  However, the applicant had the option of declining to take the test if he did not believe that the officer conducting his APFT was authorized to do so or if he believed that the conditions were too harsh to take the test.  Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that he passed any APFTs during the 2005 school year; therefore, it appears that his score was consistent with his previous tests and he has shown no evidence to show that the grader improperly graded the test in question.

6.  It is further noted that the applicant received a grade of "F."  Notwithstanding the recommendation from the Cadet Command that the grade be changed to a "W," successful completion of the NALC was a prerequisite for successful completion of the ROTC Program and commissioning.  He failed to attain the qualifications to complete the NALC, in that he failed to pass the APFT which was necessary to attend the NALC and successfully complete the ROTC Program, which should have resulted in a grade of "F" to indicate failure.  Therefore, his grade should not be changed.

7.  Although the applicant has raised numerous issues that he desires to be addressed, those issues are primarily in the form of allegations that are not supported by evidence and do not have any effect on the issue at hand which is whether or not he failed the APFT that resulted in his disenrollment.  Issues such as the disenrollment packet was improperly prepared and not properly tabbed, that the IO did not reveal the name of a person who alleged that he did not attend the 2005 Viking Quest exercise, that he was not provided nutrition counseling, that counseling statements given to him while he was on a leave of absence were improperly used, that an MOR authored by the testing officer was made to discredit him, that officials at the G1 improperly acted on his case, that the IO failed to report that he had submitted 52 matters for consideration, or that the government failed to show that he breached his contract are issues that are not relevant to whether he passed or failed the APFT and therefore serve no purpose other than to engage in a trivial unending dialog that leads to nowhere or explains why the applicant could not pass the APFT.

8.  The applicant's contention that his rights were violated when the PMS allowed his disenrollment packet to be reviewed by university officials has been noted and appears to lack merit.  While it appears that university officials are authorized to review such actions in order to ensure that the student's rights are protected, 
in this case the official designated to review his case made no objections or made any recommendations.  Therefore, the routine review by university officials served to do no harm in his case.

9.  The applicant's contention that he was only offered the option of repaying the debt and that he was not afforded the opportunity to enter active duty has been noted and found to lack merit.  While it is true that he was not offered the option of being ordered to active duty by the Commanding General of Cadet Command, in fact, he had already been offered that option on 27 July 2005 when he completed his option statement, which was the appropriate time to make his options known, which he did.

10.  All of the applicant's arguments/issues have been considered and none of them either individually or in sum warrant the relief he seeks.

11.  The applicant's contention that he disputes the amount of his debt has also been noted; however, he has failed to show through the evidence of record and the evidence submitted with his application to support his contention.  Accordingly, his debt remains valid as currently calculated. 

12.  Although the applicant has gone to great lengths to discredit the ROTC Command, it appears that they went to great lengths to attempt to get him through the program successfully.  Additionally, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient credible evidence to show that the ROTC Command was trying to keep him from being successful as he suggests, especially since doing so would indicate that they were not successful in their mission of training future officers and would gain nothing from doing so.   

13.  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.

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
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012500



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012500



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1