IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       15 January 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080019742 


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 an upgrade of his award of the Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor. 

2.  The applicant states that the Distinguished Service Cross citation contains errors and that his actions met the criteria for award of the Medal of Honor.  Specifically, the applicant states:

	a.  On 21 February 1968, the applicant and four comrades were engaged with enemy soldiers when one of his comrades attempted to throw an un-pinned phosphorous grenade at an enemy position.  As he prepared to throw the grenade, the Soldier was wounded in the head by an enemy bullet prior to releasing the grenade and fell to the ground with the activated grenade landing beside him.  With complete disregard for his own life, he (applicant) dove for the grenade, grabbed it, and attempted to get it away from his comrades.  Just as he released the grenade, it exploded, severely wounding him but none of the four other Soldiers was hurt.  The explosion caused multiple burns to his body and he ultimately spent nearly 18 months in treatment and therapy.  He still has adverse effects from his wounds today.  The appropriate award for his actions should have been the Medal of Honor; 

	b.  As with other Soldiers awarded the Medal of Honor for similar acts, it was not his duty to disregard his own safety and risk his life to protect his fellow Soldiers; the Army does not train Soldiers to grab live hand grenades to protect 

their fellow Soldiers.  His actions were above and beyond the call of duty and while other such acts have received proper recognition with a Medal of Honor, his act did not.  If he had been nominated for award of the Medal of Honor in 1968, he would certainly have received it.  This injustice must be corrected; 

	c.  The Distinguished Service Cross citation awarded on 24 November 1968 incorrectly states that he and another Soldier advanced to the cover afforded by a partially destroyed house to come within close range with the enemy.  Actually he and three other Soldiers entered the house while a fourth Soldier stood guard at the doorway to the house.  Furthermore, the citation incorrectly shows his rank as a specialist four (SP4)/E-4 when he had been promoted to sergeant (SGT)/
E-5 two days before.  The citation also shows that he threw the deadly missile toward the bunkers when in fact he was just trying to get the grenade out of the room.  He did not have time to pick out a target for the grenade.  Instead he attempted to get the grenade away from his comrades and out of the room prior to detonation.  In the process, he was wounded, but he helped save the lives of four Soldiers;  

	d.  One of the distinct protocols for awarding the Medal of Honor is the nomination by the chain of command.  The applicant’s platoon leader at the time, who ultimately became a Lieutenant General (LTG), stated that the applicant deserved the Medal of Honor on the date of his actions.  However, the platoon was in continuous contact with the enemy and the platoon leader was wounded and evacuated on 23 February 1968.  Thus, he had no input in the award recommendation.  Had he been interviewed at the time, he would have nominated the applicant for the Medal of Honor.  Years later, he volunteered to write the chain of command endorsement as he always felt the applicant was deserving of the Medal of Honor; and

	e.  While each case stands on its own merits, he was treated unfairly as evidenced by the citation of several other Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor for similar acts.  In each case, the recipients were in combat in Vietnam and their acts involved a grenade and risking their own lives to save their fellow Soldiers.  His (the applicant’s) actions were certainly as brave and gallant as the actions of those who were already recognized and awarded the Medal of Honor. 

3.  The applicant provides the following documentary evidence in support of his application:

	a.  A reconstructed DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 13 February 2006, and a proposed Medal of Honor citation;

	b.  A copy of General Orders Number 5429, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam, on 24 November 1968, showing award of the Distinguished Service Cross;

	c.  A copy of his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), dated 24 October 1969;

	d.  A copy of a letter, dated 13 February 2006, from the applicant’s former platoon leader, now a retired LTG, to the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC)-Alexandria, VA; 

	e.  A copy of a DD Form 215 (Correction to the DD Form 214), dated 13 November 1998; 

	f.  A copy of a letter, dated 20 May 2005, from Specialist Pxxl A. Hxxxr, one of the four Soldiers, to the Honorable Jim Bunning, United States Senator;

	g.  A copy of a letter, dated 21 February 2000, from Specialist Dxxxd E. Sxxxd, one of the four Soldiers, to the President of the United States; 

	h.  A copy of a letter, dated 17 October 2005, from Specialist Lxxe Wxxt, one of the four Soldiers, to Senator Bunning;

	i.  A copy of a letter from an eyewitness, Dr. Rxxxxd R. Hxxxxxn, dated 20 September 2005, to Senator Bunning; 

	j.  A copy of a letter from an eyewitness, Dxn Cxxxxn, dated 20 March 2006, to the Commander, HRC-Alexandria, VA;

	k.  A copy of an operational map showing the location of the activities;

	l.  A copy of a declassified Combat Operations After Action Report (AAR), dated 1 March 1968, for the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry; 

	m.  A copy of a DA Form 1594 (Daily Staff Journal or Duty Officer’s Log), dated 21 February 1968; and

	n.  A self-authored statement, dated 30 August 2005, describing the purpose and timing of the award upgrade and the action overview.


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 records show he was inducted into the Army of the United States on 17 October 1966.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).

3.  The applicant’s records further show he served in the Republic of Vietnam for a period of 3 months and 27 days, from 28 October 1967 to 23 February 1968.  He was assigned to Company A, 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry.  

4.  General Orders Number 11136, issued by Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division on 23 August 1968, awarded the applicant the Silver Star for gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force on 21 February 1968.

5.  On 24 November 1968, Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam, rescinded the award of the Silver Star to the applicant.  In lieu of the Silver Star, the applicant was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operation involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam.  General Orders Number 5429, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam, dated 24 November 1968, cited the following reason:

[Applicant] distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous actions on 21 February 1968 while leading a squad against four heavily fortified North Vietnamese Army bunkers near the city of Hue.  Two of the positions were successfully destroyed, but the remaining fortifications continued to pour an intense volume of fire on [Applicant] and his men. He and another Soldier advanced to the cover afforded by a partially destroyed house to come within close range of the enemy.  When his comrade attempted to throw a white phosphorous grenade through a window in the building at the communists’ positions, he was severely wounded by a sniper fire and fell senseless to the floor.  The armed grenade landed beside him.  Unhesitatingly and with a complete disregard for his own life, [Applicant] dove toward the live grenade.  Grasping it in his hands, he rolled over an opening in the wall and threw the deadly missile toward the bunkers.  As he released the grenade it detonated, critically burning him.  His quick action, however, caused the primary force of the explosion to be outside of the building, and his wounded comrade was not harmed by the blast.  [Applicant's] extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

6.  Following his tour of duty in Vietnam, the applicant returned to the United States and underwent medical treatment and therapy.  He was honorably released from active duty and was retired by reason of permanent disability on 24 October 1969.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960), the Vietnam Service Medal with two bronze service stars, the Purple Heart (1st Oak Leaf Cluster), the Bronze Star Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster) with “V” Device, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Good Conduct Medal, the Presidential Unit Citation, the Valorous Unit Award, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation. 

7.  In February 2000, by letter addressed to the President of the United States, Specialist Dxxxd E. Sxxxd, one of the four Soldiers who was present in the partially destroyed house on 21 February 1968, petitioned the President for an upgrade of the applicant’s award to the Medal of Honor.  Thereafter, the applicant and his fellow comrades-in-arms began a campaign to have his Distinguished Service Cross upgraded to a Medal of Honor.  

8.  On 23 May 2006, the applicant’s former platoon leader, now Retired LTG Mxxxxl W. Axxxxxxn, forwarded a request to the Commander, HRC-Alexandria,  concerning his desire to have the applicant’s Distinguished Service Cross upgraded to the Medal of Honor.  The application contained the following supporting documents:

	a.  A reconstructed DA Form 638, signed by LTG Axxxxxxn on 13 February 2006, recommending the applicant for award of the Medal of Honor, along with a proposed citation; 

	b.  A letter from LTG Axxxxxxn to the Commander, HRC-Alexandria, dated 13 February 2006.  In his letter, LTG Axxxxxxn stated that, on 21 February 1968, A Company, with his rifle platoon as the lead element, and D Company moved from a defensive position to an attack position to destroy enemy fortifications.  The platoon was the first to make contact with and engage a large enemy force.  After several hours of intense fighting, the applicant’s squad came under fire from a bunker.  After the enemy was defeated in the sector, and in the process of securing the area, he saw a white phosphorous explosion in the vicinity of the applicant’s location.   He was then informed by the company commander that the applicant and another Soldier were wounded.  When he arrived at the command post, he saw Specialist Hxxxxr had been hit in the head and the applicant had been badly burned, with Specialists Cxxxxxn and Sxxxx trying to help.  With the company commander present, the two Soldiers told him that the four Soldiers had gone into a building and another was positioned just outside the door to cover the rear.  They were receiving heavy fire when Specialist Hxxxxr pulled the pin on a white phosphorous grenade and as he attempted to throw it, he was hit in the head and fell to the ground, while the grenade rolled to his side.  At that time, the applicant moved across the room, grabbed the live grenade, and rolled toward a hole in the wall placing his body between the grenade and the other four men, and as he attempted to throw it, it detonated burning him critically, but 
saving the lives of four men.  The company commander assured him that the applicant would be recognized and agreed that his actions warranted the Medal of Honor.  LTG Axxxxxxn added that he and the company commander were later wounded and evacuated and that he was never personally interviewed by anyone involved in the original award recommendation;

	c.  A letter from former Specialist Hxxxxr to Senator Bunning, dated 20 May 2005, stating that he was personally present when, on 21 February 1968, he, the applicant, and two other Soldiers entered a building and threw several grenades from a window at an enemy bunker with no success.  As he pulled a pin on a white phosphorous grenade, he was shot in the head and fell to the floor.  He states Specialists Cxxxxxn and Sxxxx told him later that the applicant grabbed the live grenade and tried to get it out of the window, but as he released it, it detonated and severely burned him.  Former Specialist Hxxxxr believes the applicant’s actions are deserving of award of the Medal of Honor; 

	d.  A letter from former Specialist Sxxxd to the President of the United States, dated 21 February 2000, stating that his platoon engaged the enemy on or about 16 February 1968 and a decision was made to take out an enemy bunker.  In order to get a better shot or throw a grenade, four cavalry troopers entered a building; however, a clear shot could not be made.  At that time, Specialist Hxxxxr pulled the pin on a white phosphorous grenade and planned to throw it when he was suddenly hit in the head and dropped to the ground with the live grenade beside him.  The applicant grabbed the grenade and ran for a hole in the wall and as he threw the grenade through the hole, it exploded and the applicant was badly burned in the process.  Had the grenade detonated in the confines of the room, it would have killed all four men.  The applicant knew the effect of a phosphorous grenade and knew what was going to happen as he picked it up.  He saved three men.  Former Specialist Sxxxd believes the applicant’s courageous actions were above and beyond the call of duty and deserve award of the Medal of Honor; 

	e.  A letter from former Specialist Wxxt to Senator Bunning, dated 17 October 2005, stating that he was personally present when the applicant led the group into the building to gain access to the entrenched enemy, and that he was positioned outside the door and watching when the others entered the room and started throwing grenades.  He saw Specialist Hxxxxr attempt to throw a white phosphorous grenade, but before he could release it, he was shot in the head and the grenade fell to the ground.  At that time, the applicant grabbed the 
grenade and tried to throw it outside the building.  The grenade exploded as he 
released it.  He was severely burned, but saved the lives of other Soldiers.  Former Specialist Wxxt believes the applicant’s actions deserve an award of the Medal of Honor; 

	f.  A letter from former Sergeant (now Dr.) Hxxxxxn to Senator Bunning, dated 20 September 2005, states that he served in Vietnam and first became aware of the applicant during heavy fighting when his point man and a medic were killed and the applicant left a secure position to kill the enemy.  The applicant’s actions afforded the squad needed relief.  He adds that on another occasion, the applicant volunteered for a night patrol and gathered intelligence which may have saved many lives.  He also adds that on a third occasion, his squad was taking heavy enemy fire on 21 February 1968 and the applicant’s squad destroyed two enemy bunkers and isolated a third.  The applicant’s squad subsequently took a defensive position inside a building where one of the applicant’s men attempted to throw a white phosphorous grenade.  As he exposed himself to throw it, he was wounded and dropped the grenade to the ground.  Consistent with his track record of taking care of others, the applicant picked up the grenade and threw it away from his fellow Soldiers; however, it exploded a fraction of a second after he threw it.  In shielding his men from catastrophic injury, the applicant was badly injured.  Former Sergeant Hxxxxxn believes the applicant’s actions rose to the level of the Medal of Honor, that the applicant met the requirements for this award and his actions favorably compare with others who have been awarded the Medal of Honor; and 

	g.  A letter from former Specialist Cxxxxn to the Commander, HRC-Alexandria, dated 20 March 2006 stating that he took over the applicant’s squad after the applicant was injured.  The unit had suffered many casualties and immediately upon taking over the position, the Soldiers continually mentioned the applicant’s actions.  The Soldiers who served with the applicant had great respect for him, his leadership, and his lead-from-the-front approach.  Former Specialist Cxxxxn believes the applicant should be fully recognized by his country for his incredible heroism displayed on 21 February 1968.  He also opines that the applicant met the requirements for award of the Medal of Honor for his personal bravery and risk of life and for going above and beyond the call of duty. 

9.  In a letter dated 17 July 2008, the Chief, Military Awards Branch, US Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Alexandria, Virginia responded to Senator Bunning that, on 11 July 2008, the Army Decorations Board, after full deliberation, determined that the degree of action and service rendered by the 
applicant did not meet the strict criteria for award of the Medal of Honor.  Based 
on the Decorations Board's recommendation, the Commanding General, HRC, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, disapproved award of the Medal of Honor, reaffirming that the previously approved, upgraded award of the Distinguished Service Cross was the appropriate award for the applicant.

10.  The applicant submitted a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Records Under the Provisions of Title 10, US Code, Section 1552) to the ABCMR on 3 November 2008.  In addition to submitting the above statements and letters, the applicant provided the following additional documentation with his DD Form 149:

	a.  Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, General Orders Number 4615, dated 12 June 1968, showing LTG Axxxxxxn, then a first lieutenant, was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam on 21 February 1968;

	b.  A map showing the location of the fields of fire in relation to the location of both his platoon and the ambushing force;

	c.  Several extracts of Combat Operations AAR, dated 1 March 1968.  The AAR describes in details combat operations during the period from 1 February 1968 through 28 February 1968; and 

	d.  DA Form 1594 showing incidents, messages, and orders that the Intelligence/Operations Officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry, entered on    21 February 1968.

11.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) provides, in pertinent part, that the Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life.  Incontestable proof of the performance of the service is required.

12.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person, who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism while engaged in 
action against an enemy of the United States not justifying award of the Medal of Honor.  The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.

13.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides, in pertinent part, that the Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy.  The required gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction.  As with all personal decorations, formal recommendations, approval through the chain of command, and announcement in orders are required.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is entitled to an upgrade of his Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor.  His original request for the Medal of Honor was submitted to the Army through the Honorable Jim Bunning and his former platoon leader, now-retired LTG Axxxxxxn.  The request was disapproved by the Senior Army Decorations Board.  The reason cited was that the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the strict criteria for the proposed award.

2.  The Army awards system recognizes and reacts to distinguishing acts of valor and bravery for Soldiers and it is the commander on the ground who is the steward to ensure proper recognition of our brave men and women.  The Army has always been fully committed to the responsibility to properly recognize Soldiers for their valor, heroism, and meritorious service through a fair and consistent decorations and awards policy and process.

   a.  Awards and decorations are very important to Soldiers.  Equally important is the governance of the awards program.  For the awards program to be credible to the Soldiers and the American people, it must ensure that it recognizes the right individuals for the proper award.  It must ensure the integrity of the award is maintained through strict procedures and proper justifications.  Finally it must place trust and confidence in commanders to execute the program.

	b.  The criteria for military awards are set forth in statutes, executive orders and appropriate regulations.  Established by law, the criteria for the three highest valor awards have not changed from what they were in past conflicts.  Army regulation and policy establish the standards by which those awards are processed, approved, and presented.  This consistency upholds the heritage of the awards and the legacy of the heroes who have earned them.

	c.  Army policy allows any Soldier to recommend another Soldier for an award.  The Army's awards program relies on those with first-hand knowledge of a Soldier's heroic or valorous action to recommend the Soldier for the appropriate award.  Award recommendations are sent up through the Soldier's chain of command to company, battalion, brigade, and division commanders. Commanders at every level of review can recommend approval or upgrade of the award based upon their authority.  Commanders with authority to approve awards also have the authority to downgrade or disapprove awards based on their judgment, knowledge, and the criteria established for the award.  Command involvement is critical for program success.

	d.  The three highest decorations for valor are the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, and the Silver Star.  During Vietnam, the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross were processed and approved above the division commander's authority.  Recommendations for the Medal of Honor were forwarded through command channels to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and reviewed by the Senior Army Decorations Board consisting of Army Lieutenant Generals.  The President of the United States was the final approving authority.  Recommendations for the Distinguished Service Cross were forwarded through command channels to Headquarters, US Army Vietnam (USARV).  The Deputy Commanding General of USARV was the final approving authority.  Division commanders were authorized to approve recommendations for award of the Silver Star.

3.  As stated, the highest awards for valor are, in descending order, the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, and the Silver Star.  Requirements for each award are:

	a.  Medal of Honor –The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President, in the name of Congress, to a service member who distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing 
foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life.  Incontestable proof of the performance of the service is required and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.  Again, only the President can award the Medal of Honor.

	b.  Distinguished Service Cross – The second highest award bestowed upon a Soldier for valor is the Distinguished Service Cross.  The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a Soldier who distinguishes himself or herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a Medal of Honor; while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing/foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing Armed Force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  The act or acts of heroism must be so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.  Today, the Distinguished Service Crosses is approved by the Secretary of the Army.

	c.  Silver Star – Finally, the third highest award for combat heroism is the Silver Star.  The Silver Star is awarded to a Soldier who is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.  The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.  

4.  As can be seen from the above comments, there exists a very fine distinction between "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity," "extraordinary heroism," and "gallantry in action."  Oftentimes, the degree of heroism required for a particular award is blurred and subject to personal interpretation.  What is not subject to interpretation is the selfless sacrifice demonstrated by all recipients of these three highest awards for valor.  All recipients are, without doubt, true American heroes.

5.  The applicant’s record shows that he was clearly cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force in the Republic of Vietnam.  A decision was made to award him the Silver Star.  It cannot be determined if the Silver Star was meant to be an interim award or a final award; however, he was later awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.  

6.  While the applicant believes his actions were similar to those of other Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor, each case stands on its own merits.  In this case, the applicant’s actions were acknowledged and he was initially awarded the Silver Star.  Upon further review, it was determined that his actions rose above “gallantry in action” to the level of “extraordinary heroism.”  His award was therefore upgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross by his chain of command in Vietnam.  Because he was not recommended for the Medal of Honor, his act of heroism was not elevated to HQDA in 1968 for review by the Senior Army Decorations Board.  However, as a result of the recommendations by his United States Senator and a retired LTG, his act was reviewed by the Senior Army Decorations Board in 2008.  That board was able to evaluate the applicant’s act of heroism against other acts of heroism from the Vietnam era which did result in award of the Medal of Honor.  The board of seasoned senior generals opined that the applicant’s act did not rise to the level of conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action necessary to merit an upgrade to the Medal of Honor.  Therefore, an upgrade of his Distinguished Service Cross is not warranted.
 
7.  The applicant is a true American hero; his selfless act of bravery and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service; the award of the Distinguished Service Cross is appropriate recognition.  In making this determination, the applicant and all others concerned should know that this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to our Nation.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.

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.


															XXX
      ______________________
               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)                                         AR20080019742



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080019742



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1