IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  	  24 March 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080019490 


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, upgrade of the character of service of his discharge to honorable or a change to the type of discharge to a medical discharge under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states in his self-authored statement that he was 16 years old when he enlisted in the Army and he had every intention of making a career out of the military.  The applicant also states that his father gave his consent to allow him to enlist in the Army.

     a.  The applicant recounts his experience upon entry into the military and a conversation he had with an older individual (Iva H_____) who had prior service and was reentering the military at the same time as the applicant was enlisting.  The applicant states that they shared information about their personal lives and both indicated they had family problems.

     b.  The applicant states that after he completed the medical entrance process in Richmond, Virginia, he was sent to Fort Benning, Georgia.  He states that during basic combat training (BCT) he had difficulty running the mile, he would get cramps in his right side, his First Sergeant would ask him what was wrong, and then punch him in his right side.

     c.  The applicant states that he was singled-out by members of his platoon because he could not do physical training without getting cramps.  He also states that he was the subject of frequent "blanket parties" where members of the platoon would throw a blanket over him, hold him down, and punch him.  He adds that he was afraid to close his eyes at night for fear of these "blanket parties."  The applicant provides details of the "blanket parties" he experienced, including the first time when he was tightly wrapped in the blanket and swung back and forth, other occasions of being thrown and landing on his head and neck, and also of being thrown in the shower and doused with water.

     d.  The applicant states that the individual whom he had met during his enlistment entrance processing discovered him in the shower and told the members of the platoon to leave the applicant alone or face the consequences with him.  He also states that he never heard from this individual again and believes he was transferred out of the unit.

     e.  The applicant states he was then transferred to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, but the "blanket parties" and beatings never stopped.  He describes how he stayed under the bed covers scared and shaking, and remained terrified that another "blanket party" was coming.  He adds that he subsequently went absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit.

     f.  The applicant states that after he was discharged in the early 1970s, he noticed he had developed a problem, which later was diagnosed as panic attacks, depression, confusion, and anxiety attack disorders.  He also describes other symptoms he experienced; however, at the time, he did not know what was coming over him and he felt like he was in a world of his own.

     g.  The applicant states that he was in a state of confusion and unhappy for about four years and even tried killing himself.  He adds that his condition continued through 1979 or 1980, when he went to see a psychologist for help.  He also states that the doctor wanted to give him shock therapy, he refused, his panic attacks continued, and his condition has worsened over the last few years.  The applicant states he has stopped going to doctors, he tries to deal with his symptoms on his own; however, he has not been able to get them under control.

     h.  The applicant concludes by stating he feels his discharge from the Army was wrong and unjustified.  He implores the Board to locate and speak with Iva H___ because he can attest to the experiences the applicant encountered during BCT.

3.  The applicant provides a 3-page self-authored statement, undated; a copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) with an effective date of 20 April 1970; and statements by Mr. Larry J. R_____, dated 24 August 2008; Ms. Christine B______, dated 18 August 2008; Mr. Carl Lee B______, dated 17 August 2008; and Ms. Marsha K. H_____, dated 3 August 2008.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's military personnel records contain a DD Form 373 (Consent, Declaration of Parent or Legal Guardian), dated 3 June 1969, that shows the applicant’s date of birth is __ January 1952.  This document also shows, in pertinent part, that James Myron H____, the applicant’s father, consented to the applicant’s enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 3 years.  This document further shows that the applicant’s parents were legally divorced.

3.  The applicant’s military personnel records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army and entered active duty for a period of 3 years on 18 June 1969.

4.  The applicant's military personnel records contain a DA Form 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]), dated 31 July 1969.  This document shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed by the battalion commander against the applicant for, on or about 0500 hours,
29 July 1969, without authority, failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty, to wit:  Formation, Company E, 1st Battalion,
1st  Training Brigade, U.S. Army Training Center, Infantry (USATCI), Fort Benning, Georgia, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ; and for on or about
0515 hours, 29 July 1969, at Fort Benning, Georgia, having knowledge of a lawful order issued by a superior noncommissioned officer to march Malone 5, an order which it was the applicant’s duty to obey, he did, at Company E,
1st Battalion, 1st  Training Brigade, USATCI, Fort Benning, Georgia, fail to obey the same, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  The punishment imposed was forfeiture of $50.00 and to serve 7 days at the Correctional Custody Facility (CCF), 1st Training Brigade, USATCI, Fort Benning, Georgia.

5.  The applicant's military personnel records contain a DA Form 2627-1, dated 20 September 1969.  This document shows that nonjudicial punishment was imposed by the company commander against the applicant for, on or about
8 September 1969, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, stealing clothing, of a value of about $2.96, the property of Private Donald G. E______; and for on or about 18 September 1969, at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, wrongfully and unlawfully making a false statement in substance as follows:  that Private Michael F. S______ gave [the applicant] a fatigue jacket, subsequently determined to be the property of Private Donald G. E______, a statement the applicant did not then believe to be true.  The punishment imposed was forfeiture of $25.00, extra duty for 14 days, and restriction to the company area for 14 days.

6.  The applicant’s military personnel records contain a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record).

     a.  Item 38 (Record of Assignments), in pertinent part, shows the applicant was assigned to Company E, 1st Battalion, 1st  Training Brigade, USATCI, Fort Benning, Georgia on 30 June 1969 for BCT.  This item also shows he was then assigned to Company A, 2nd Battalion, 4th Advanced Individual Training (AIT) Brigade (Support), U.S. Army Training Center (USATC), Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 24 August 1969.

     b.  Item 44 (Time Lost Under Section 972, Title 10, United States Code [USC] and Subsequent to Normal Date ETS [Expiration Term of Service]) shows the applicant was AWOL for 30 days from 13 October through 11 November 1969; AWOL for 55 days from 13 November 1969 through 6 January 1970; in pre-trial confinement for 63 days from 7 January through 10 March 1970; and in confinement for 40 days from 11 March through 19 April 1970.

     c.  The DA Form 20B (Insert Sheet to DA Form 20, Record of Court-Martial Conviction) shows a Special Court-Martial convened at Headquarters,
Special Troops, U.S. Army Training Center, Engineer and Fort Leonard Wood (USATCE & FL), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, pursuant to Special Court-Martial Order Number 230, dated 16 April 1970.  This document shows the applicant was convicted under Article 86, UCMJ, for being AWOL from on or about
13 October until on or about 12 November 1969 and for being AWOL from on or about 13 November 1969 until on or about 7 January 1970.  This document also shows that the applicant’s sentence was confinement at hard labor for 5 months and forfeiture of $75.00 per month for 5 months.  The sentence was adjudged on 3 March 1970 and approved on 11 March 1970.

7.  On 27 March 1970, the Commander, Correctional Holding Detachment, USATCE & FL, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness based on his record of AWOL.  The applicant was also advised of his rights and he acknowledged the commander’s notification with his signature.

8.  On 31 March 1970, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  The applicant acknowledged with his signature that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before a board of officers, waived representation by appointed counsel and/or civilian counsel at his own expense, and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He also acknowledged he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions is issued to him.  He further acknowledged that he understood that, as the result of issuance of an undesirable discharge under conditions other than honorable, he would be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws, and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  The applicant’s legal counsel also affixed his signature to the document.

9.  On 3 April 1970, the Commander, Correctional Holding Detachment, USATCE & FL, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, requested that the applicant be discharged before the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, paragraph 12a, for unfitness based on repeated and lengthy periods of AWOL, excessive time lost in the service, resistance to authority and regulations, and a pattern of behavior which renders him a complete loss to the service.  The commander requested that further counseling and rehabilitation requirements be waived because additional rehabilitation efforts would be inappropriate  based upon his negative attitude.  The commander added that the applicant’s immature attitude and lack of progress in the Army marks him as unfit for military service.  The commander recommended the applicant be discharged and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 4 April 1970, the Commander, Special Troops, USATCE & FL, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, recommended that the waiver of a hearing by a board of officers, and the request for waiver of counseling and rehabilitation requirements be granted; that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212; and the applicant be issued an undesirable discharge.  The commander noted that the applicant’s statement indicating he was agreeable to accepting a discharge under other than honorable conditions was attached to the separation packet.

11.  The applicant's military personnel records contain a Standard Form 513 (Consultation Sheet), undated, and Comment 2, dated 13 April 1970, subject:  Request for Medical Evaluation.  These document shows that the lieutenant colonel assigned to the Medical Corps and serving as the Acting Surgeon, Mental Hygiene Consultation Service (MHCS), Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, reviewed the applicant’s medical records and also interviewed him.

     a.  The interview revealed that the applicant alleged he struck his head in a fight in September 1969 and, since then, he sometimes does things that he later does not remember having done.  The interview also shows that the applicant recalled the nonjudicial punishment that he received, his periods of AWOL, and his current sentence in the Stockade.  He also stated that he had been in a lot of fights with other trainees.

     b.  The documentation shows that the applicant was interviewed by MHCS on 20 February 1970 and 7 April 1970; his speech was relevant, coherent, and logical; his mood was one of anger; his psycho-motor activity was normal; there was no evidence of any thought disorder; and his intelligence appeared to be adequate.

     c.  The Acting Surgeon concluded that, in spite of the applicant’s complaint about forgetting things, it did not appear that he suffered any brain damage from his head injury.  He added that the applicant’s inability to remember things occurs at times when secondary gain is to be derived.  The Acting Surgeon stated that the applicant appears to have a passive-aggressive personality disorder, which is severe in nature, but he was qualified for military service on a worldwide basis. However, the Acting Surgeon noted that the chances of rehabilitating the applicant were poor and discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-212 would be appropriate.

12.  On 13 April 1970, the major general serving as Commander, USATCE & FL, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri (the General Court-Martial Convening Authority and the authorized separation authority in the applicant’s case), reviewed the request for elimination from the service of the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 and noted his waiver of the right to appear before a board of officers.  The separation authority approved the waiver of a hearing by a board of officers, approved the request for waiver of counseling and rehabilitation requirements, approved the applicant’s discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, and directed the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 20 April 1970.

13.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, Separation Program Number (SPN) 28B, under conditions other than honorable.  Item 30 (Remarks) of the DD Form 214 shows, in pertinent part, the applicant had 188 days lost under Title 10, USC, section 972, from 13 October through 11 November 1969; 13 November 1969 through 6 January 1970; and 7 January through 19 April 1970.  The DD Form 214 also shows that the applicant was discharged on
20 April 1970; credited with completing 3 months and 27 days of net active service during the period under review; and issued a DD Form 258A (Undesirable Discharge Certificate).

14.  The applicant's military personnel records document no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

15.  On 11 May 1974, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States) requesting upgrade of the character of service of his discharge.

     a.  The DD Form 293 shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant stated, “I feel that my actions while in the military reverted back to my childhood.  I had psychological problems, due to my parents being divorced.  The pressure of being torn from both parents was too great for me to cope with.  I would live with my father, who was a strict disciplinarian who had inflicted great bodily harm on me.  He even went as far as breaking both of my arms.  This evidence can be obtained from Prince George County Courts (Juvenile Division), Virginia (Year 1968).  Court Records also available from:  Courts - Lake County, Indiana.”  

     b.  On 19 August 1974, the applicant was notified that, after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant was properly discharged.  Accordingly, the Secretary of the Army directed that the applicant be advised that his request for a change in the type and nature of his discharge was denied.

16.  In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents.

     a.  A 3-page self-authored statement and his DD Form 214 with an effective date of 20 April 1970 that were previously introduced and considered in this Record of Proceedings.

     b.  The statement by Mr. Larry J. R_____, dated 24 August 2008, shows he has known the applicant for most of his life and recalls working with the applicant as part of a crew of seven who worked for his uncle on masonry projects after the applicant returned from the service.

         (1)  Mr. R_____ recalls, on one particular occasion, the applicant's uncle cursed and threatened him for a mishap that occurred and the applicant ran off.  Later, while driving home, the uncle picked up the applicant who was walking on the side of the road, continued his cursing and threats toward the applicant, and the applicant was trembling like a little dog.  Mr. R____ states that he helped the applicant get a different job and he also worked with him there.  He adds that the applicant quit because the crew leader yelled and hollered at him.  Mr. R_____ states that the applicant later married, but "his life was nothing but chaos" and "his temper tantrums became worse."  He adds that the applicant divorced and remarried with the same consequences because he could not control his behavior even though he tried to keep his emotions in check.

         (2)  Mr. R_____ states that the applicant told him about his experiences in the military, which were described by the applicant in his self-authored statement and previously summarized in this Record of Proceedings.

         (3)  Mr. R____ describes how the applicant has struggled to remain employed, adds that he is a helpful and caring person, but continues to have a very difficult time as a result of his military experience.

     c.  The statement by Ms. Christine B______, dated 18 August 2008, the applicant's mother, shows the applicant came back home to live with her in
1970 and the military had changed him.  She states that the applicant would keep to himself most of the time and did not want to be around other family members or other people.  She adds that he showed a lot of signs of depression, displayed anger toward her, and could not keep a job.  Ms. B______ states that his behavior was foreign to her and he was not that way before he went into the Army.  She adds that the beatings he took while he was in the Army caused him to shut everyone who loved him out of his life.

         (1)  Ms B_____ states that the applicant lost a lot of weight and was unhealthy, and even tried to take his own life.  She adds that since 1997 he has been on medication to calm him down, but his problems are still with him.  

         (2)  Ms B_____ concludes by stating her son was only 16 years of age when he went into the Army and bad things happened to him that have adversely affected him and now shape his future.   She requests help in assisting her son in his request for correction of his type and character of discharge. 

     d.  The statement by Mr. Carl Lee B______, dated 17 August 2008, the applicant's half-brother, shows that he and the applicant were very close, the applicant was very patient with him as his older brother, and that the military changed his brother's life.

         (1)  Mr. B_____ states when the applicant returned from the military there were times when he would spend months alone in his bedroom being depressed and troubled over life.  He also states that the applicant would display his anger when he was working on things and unable to fix them, and it was difficult to talk to him.

         (2)  Mr. B______ states it was only a few years ago that he learned what had happened to his brother while he was in the Army, which helped him to understand the change in him.  He also states that years have passed, but his brother is still dealing with and trying to make sense out of what happened to him when he was only 16 years old.  

         (3)  Mr. B_____ implores the U.S. Army to make things right and help his brother.

     e.  The statement by Ms. Marsha K. H_____, dated 3 August 2008, the applicant's sister, shows her brother entered the U.S. Army when he was only
16 years of age and embarked in what he thought was a life-changing event.  She also states that Army officials failed in their responsibility of protecting the applicant against beatings from other Soldiers.

         (1)  Ms. H_____ describes the difficulties the applicant has dealt with since returning home from the military, which she directly relates to his inability to cope with what happened to him in the Army.

         (2)  Ms. H_____ states that the Army “looked the other way when [her] brother enlisted at the age of 16.”  She also asks the Army to do the right thing now to help him cope with and have a chance for some normalcy in his life.

17.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, provided procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel for, in pertinent part, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  This Army regulation provides that Soldiers discharged for unfitness will be furnished an undesirable discharge certificate, except that an honorable or general discharge certificate may be awarded by the separation authority.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Personnel Separations - Separation Documents), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, prescribed policies and procedures regarding separation documents.  It also established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.   Section III (Instructions for Preparation and Distribution of the Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) contains guidance on the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent part, that all available records will be used as a basis for the preparation of the DD Form 214, including the Enlisted Qualification Record, Officer Qualification Record, and orders.  Paragraph
31 (Item 11c - Reason and Authority) states, in pertinent part, "the authority for transfer or discharge will be entered in this item by reference to the appropriate regulation, circular, bulletin, special separation directive, statute, etc., followed by the SPN and descriptive reason for transfer or discharge."  

19.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Numbers), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPN to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPN of “28B” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers discharged for unfitness who are involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.

20.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  

21.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier's separation specifically allows such characterization.

22.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge, set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures in determining whether a Soldier was unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  Paragraph 3-1 (Standards of unfitness because of physical disability) of this Army regulation, in pertinent part, provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of their office, grade, rank, or rating.

23.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, his records should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged or honorably discharged based on medical reasons because he was only 16 years of age when he entered the Army, he was physically abused by other Soldiers during BCT and AIT, and he has developed medical problems that were diagnosed as panic attacks, depression, confusion, and anxiety attack disorders.

2.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show that he enlisted in the U.S. Army when he was 16 years of age.  In fact, records show the applicant was 17 years of age when his father provided his consent and the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army.  Thus, the evidence of record refutes the applicant's claim that he was only 16 years of age when he entered the Army.

3.  Records show that the Acting Surgeon, MHCS, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, reviewed the applicant’s medical records and also interviewed the applicant one week prior to his discharge.  The evidence of record shows, at that time, the applicant stated he had struck his head in a fight in September 1969 and also acknowledged that he had been in a lot of fights with other trainees.  However, there is no indication that applicant informed the medical official that he had been beaten by other trainees or by his First Sergeant.  In this regard, it is noted that during the applicant's meetings with his commanding officer that related to the imposition of nonjudicial punishment for his acts of indiscipline, and also during his medical and legal consultations with medical and legal personnel during his separation processing, there is no evidence of record that indicates the applicant made any verbal or written statement alleging he was physically abused by other Soldiers or noncommissioned officers during BCT or AIT.  Thus, in view of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant's contention in this instance.

4.  It is also noted that the applicant did not raise the issue of his being beaten by other trainees or by his First Sergeant when he applied to the ADRB.

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant was referred to a medical evaluation board or a physical evaluation board.  There is also no evidence of record of any documented unfitting medical condition(s).  In fact, the Acting Surgeon noted that the applicant was qualified for military service on a worldwide basis.  In this regard, there is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was found unfit for retention in military service duty during the period of service under review. Thus, in view of the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s claim that he should have been medically discharged from the Army.

6.  There is a presumption of administrative regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption can be applied to any review unless there is substantial creditable evidence to rebut the presumption.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the applicant was found medically qualified for administrative separation.

7.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the appropriate discharge certificate was furnished.

8.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged based upon frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military authorities, which included nonjudicial punishment on two occasions, two periods of AWOL totaling 85 days, and 103 days in confinement.  Thus, the evidence of record confirms the reason and authority for the applicant’s discharge were appropriate for the offenses committed.  The evidence of record also shows the applicant enlisted for a period of 3 years, completed 3 months and 27 days of net active service during the period of service under review, and he had 188 days (i.e., more than
6 months) of time lost during this period.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Thus, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.  In addition, the evidence of record shows that the applicant's overall quality of service during the period of service under review was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a general discharge under honorable conditions.

9.  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.  Therefore, there is no justification 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
      
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)                                         AR20080019490



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080019490



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1