IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 June 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090001576 


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 defers his request to counsel.

2.  The applicant defers his statement to counsel.  

3.  The applicant provides additional documentary evidence through counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests removal of all three DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) from the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and reinstatement in the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 with all back pay and allowances.  

2.  Counsel states that the applicant’s punishment in this case was unjust given his well-documented medical condition.  Counsel adds the following: 

	a.  on 8 January 2008, the applicant was notified that he was being separated under chapter 14 (Misconduct) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations).  However, following a psychiatric evaluation that diagnosed him with adjustment disorder with disturbance of mood and conduct, he was notified on 14 April 2008 that he was being separated under chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Convenience of the Government - Other designated physical or mental conditions);

	b.  on 15 April 2008, he requested a conditional waiver of an administrative separation board pending receipt of an under honorable conditions (general) character of service.  On 25 April 2008, the immediate commander recommended separation and cited his previous nonjudicial punishments on 24 May 2007, 13 September 2007, and 18 October 2007.  On 1 May 2008, his separation was approved; however, the separation authority suspended the separation for 6 months pending further review of his medical condition and rehabilitative potential.  On 25 August 2008, the applicant requested that he be retained on active duty and the three Article 15 punishments be set aside.  On 27 August 2008, the separation authority disapproved the separation and ordered his retention on active duty, but disapproved setting aside the Article 15 punishments; 

	c  there are two medical concerns that pertain to the applicant.  The first is a cystic legion in the brain which lights up when contrast is administered, indicating a need for further evaluation.  The second is his traumatic brain injury (TBI).  Although he is making slow but steady progress in occupational therapy, the symptoms of irritability, insomnia, severe headaches, difficulty tolerating bright lights, and poor balance, contribute to a degree to the friction that at times developed between himself and his chain of command.  The insomnia clearly affected his ability to function in the morning and contributed to his lateness to morning formations.  In 25 September 2008, he was ordered to the Warrior Transition Unit (WTU) for medical treatment and remains in the WTU-Germany today;

	d.  the 24 May 2007 Article 15 for failing to attend physical training on three occasions is nothing short of troublesome and patently unfair.  As early as November 2006, the applicant had reported to the clinic for an examination and he was diagnosed as suffering from sleep disorder, anxiety, and marital problems.  He was counseled by a social worker, which explains why his TBI went undiagnosed.  He was not seen again until 30 January 2007 and on 8 February 2007 and was again seen by a social worker who counseled him on his marital problems.  He was seen at the clinic the week before his Article 15 and expressed his issues to his chain of command and even requested a transfer;

	e.  on 12 September 2007, the applicant received his second Article 15 which reduced him to a specialist (SPC)/E-4 in addition to extra duty, restriction, and a suspended forfeiture of pay.  On 18 October 2007, he again was found guilty of failing to be at his appointed place of duty and breaking restriction.  A copy of this Article 15 is not available at this time and will be provided at a later date.  This Article 15 reduced him to a private (PV1)/E-1 in addition to a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction; 
	f.  the underlying conduct that led to the applicant’s reduction in rank consisted of his inability to wake up in time for his physical training formation.  To reduce a SGT to PV1 for repeated lateness to formations is nothing short of absurd and an injustice, particularly given the underlying medical condition in this case;

	g.  the commander specifically requested a medical opinion.  It was medically determined that the applicant had a cystic lesion in his brain and the evidence is clear that he has TBI.  The doctors determined that his post-concussive syndrome included irritability, insomnia, severe headaches, in addition to cognitive compromise.  The doctors further determined that TBI affects his ability to function in the morning.   His primary care manager placed him on a number of medications that caused him to sleep through his alarm; and

	h.  when Soldiers realize they would be abandoned the moment they are medically unfit for duty, all confidence in the command is lost.  Reducing him from SGT to PV1 over a period of time did absolutely nothing to further the needs of good order and discipline; the applicant cannot even provide for his family at that pay rate.  The commander completely abused his discretion in reducing a wounded warrior in rank.

3.  Counsel provides the following additional documentary evidence in support of the applicant’s request:

	a.  copy of memorandum, dated 16 April 2008, subject: Separation Under Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200; 

	b.  copy of memorandum, dated 15 April 2008, subject: Request for Conditional Waiver - Separation Under Chapter 5-17 of Army Regulation
635-200; 

	c.  copy of memorandum, dated 25 April 2008, subject: Separation Under Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200; 

	d.  copy of memorandum, dated 1 May 2008, subject: Separation Under Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200;

	e.  copy of memorandum, dated 13 July 2008, subject: Suspension of Separation Action [Applicant]; 

	f.  copy of memorandum, dated 27 August 2008, subject: Separation Under Chapter 5 of Army Regulation 635-200;
	g.  copy of memorandum, dated 25 September 2008, subject: Retention and Article 15 Set-Aside Request; 

	h.  copy of letter, dated 14 August 2008, Director of Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) TBI Recovery Team;  

	i.  copies of DA Forms 2627, dated 24 May 2007 and 13 September 2008; and

	j.  copies of Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated on miscellaneous dates in 2006 and 2007.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he initially enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years on 6 July 2001.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  He also executed a 4-year reenlistment on 1 September 2003 and a 2-year reenlistment on 16 September 2005.  He was promoted through the ranks to SPC on 6 February 2003 and to SGT on 1 October 2005.  He was assigned to Company B, 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry in Germany.

2.  The applicant’s records show he was counseled by his platoon sergeant on 29 January 2007, 30 January 2007, 27 March 2007, and 25 April 2007, and by his platoon leader on 25 April 2007, for failure to be at his appointed place of duty (morning accountability formation).  In each instance, the applicant agreed with the key points of each counseling session.

3.  On 24 May 2007, at a closed hearing, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for four instances of failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 24, 29, and 30 January 2007 and on or about 25 April 2007.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $506.00 pay, 14 days of restriction, and 14 days of extra duty (suspended until 20 November 2007).  The imposing commander directed this Article 15 be filed in the restricted portion of the applicant's OMPF.  Furthermore, the applicant elected not to appeal his punishment.

4.  On 29 August 2007, the applicant was again counseled by his squad leader regarding his failure to be at his appointed place of duty (morning accountability formation) after having been specifically instructed by his squad leader to be at the unit at 6:30 A.M. on that day.  The applicant indicated that he agreed with the key points of the counseling session.
5.  On 13 September 2007, at a closed hearing, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about 29 August 2007.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to SPC, a forfeiture of $1,161.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended until 11 March 2008), 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction.  The imposing commander directed this Article 15 be filed in the performance section of the applicant's OMPF.  The applicant elected to appeal the imposed punishment and submit additional matters.

6.  On 24 September 2007, the applicant appealed his punishment to the next higher commander (brigade commander).  In his appeal, the applicant indicated that he understood that as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) he is held to a higher standard and explained that the night before his incident on 29 August 2007, his spouse needed emergency dental treatment and that he had to stay up until the early hours trying to get her an appointment.  He further added that he knew he was wrong to miss morning formation and appealed for a chance to show that he could lead from the front and set the example by turning his mistake into a lesson learned.  In support of his appeal, the applicant also provided several character reference letters.

7.  On 20 September 2007, the brigade commander denied the applicant’s appeal. On 21 September 2007, the applicant acknowledged the action taken on his appeal.

8.  The applicant's third Article 15, dated 18 October 2007 is not available for review with this case.  It is neither posted to his OMPF nor was it included with the applicant's request.  Furthermore, counsel stated that it would be provided separately; however, to date a copy of this Article 15 has not been received.

9.  Counsel provided several memoranda, dated on various dates, regarding the applicant’s separation under the provisions of chapter 5 of Army Regulation
635-200, none of which is posted to his official records.  Nevertheless, the memoranda show the following:

	a.  on 14 April 2008, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, because of other designated physical or mental condition;

	b.  on 15 April 2008, after consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving no less than an under honorable conditions (general) discharge; 
	c.  on 25 April 2008, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of adjustment disorder with disturbance of mood and conduct.  He further recommended an under honorable conditions (general) character of service; 

	d.  on 28 April 2008, the applicant’s intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s discharge with an under honorable conditions (general) character of service; 

	e.  on 1 May 2008, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of other designated physical or mental condition.  He further directed his service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general); 

	f.  on 13 July 2008, in response to a request by the applicant (copy is not available for review with this case) the separation authority suspended the applicant’s discharge for a period of 6 months.  He indicated that the purpose of this suspension was twofold.  First, he wanted the applicant’s medical condition to be investigated further to determine if he could be rehabilitated and retained in the Army.  Second, the applicant submitted a request to have his previous nonjudicial punishment set aside due to his claim that the underlying misconduct was caused by a medical condition;

	g.  on 14 August 2008, the Director of LRMC TBI Recovery Team stated that the applicant was under the care of the neurology clinic for a cystic lesion in the brain and TBI.  He further indicated that the lesion lights up when contrast is administered, indicating a need for further evaluation and that his insomnia affected his ability to function in the morning and contributed to his lateness to formations.  The Director further recommended the applicant’s separation be reconsidered and that he be transferred to the WTU for further care;  

	h.  on 25 August 2008, the applicant submitted a request to be retained in the Army and have his three Article 15 punishments set aside (a copy of this request is not available for review with this case); 

	i.  on 27 August 2008, the separation authority (new commander) disapproved recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he be retained on active duty; 

	j.  on 25 September 2008, the separation authority notified the applicant that his request to be retained on active duty was approved in order to rehabilitate and receive medical treatment at the WTU; however, his request to have his previous Article 15 punishment set aside was denied.   

10.  The applicant's records show that he was reassigned to the WTU at LRMC, Germany on 31 July 2008.  He was advanced to private (PV2)/E-2 on 7 August 2008 and to private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 1 January 2009.  His records further show that his current separation date is 2 December 2011 (a copy of his reenlistment contract is not available for review with this case). 

11.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice and implements the Manual for Courts-Martial.  It provides, in pertinent part, that a commander should use nonpunitive administrative measures to the fullest extent to further the efficiency of the command before resorting to NJP under the UCMJ.  Use of NJP is proper in all cases involving minor offenses in which nonpunitive measures are considered inadequate or inappropriate.  If it is clear that NJP will not be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, more stringent measures must be taken.  Prompt action is essential for NJP to have the proper corrective effect.  NJP may be imposed to correct, educate, and reform offenders who the imposing commander determines cannot benefit from less stringent measures; to preserve a Soldier’s record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction; and to further military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial.

12.  Paragraph 3-9 3 of Army Regulation 27-10 contains guidance on minor offenses.  It states that generally the term "minor" includes misconduct not involving any greater degree of criminality than is involved in the average offense tried by summary court-martial.  It does not include misconduct of a type that, if tried by general court-martial, could be punished by dishonorable discharge or confinement for more than 1 year.  Paragraph 3-9 further stipulates that the general minor offense rule is not hard and fast and that the circumstances of the offense might indicate that action under Article 15 would be appropriate even in a case falling outside the normal identified categories.

13.  Paragraph 3-6 of Army Regulation 27-10 addresses the filing of an NJP and provides, in pertinent part, that a commander’s decision whether to file a record of NJP in the performance section of a Soldier’s OMPF is as important as the decision relating to the imposition of the NJP itself.  In making a filing determination, the imposing commander must weigh carefully the interests of the 
Soldier’s career against those of the Army to produce and advance only the most qualified personnel for positions of leadership, trust, and responsibility.  In this regard, the imposing commander should consider the Soldier’s age, grade, total service (with particular attention to the Soldier’s recent performance and past misconduct), and whether the Soldier has more than one record of NJP directed for filing in the restricted section.  However, the interests of the Army are compelling when the record of NJP reflects unmitigated moral turpitude or lack of integrity, patterns of misconduct, or evidence of serious character deficiency or substantial breach of military discipline.  In such cases, the record should be filed in the performance section.  Paragraph 3-37b(2) states that for Soldiers, in the ranks of sergeant (SGT) and above, the original will be sent to the appropriate custodian for filing in the OMPF.  The decision to file the original DA Form 2627 in the performance section or restricted section of the OMPF will be made by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed.  The filing decision of the imposing commander is subject to review by superior authority.

14.  Paragraph 3-18 of Army Regulation 27-10 contains guidance on notification procedures and explanation of rights.  It states, in pertinent part, that the imposing commander will ensure that the Soldier is notified of the commander's intention to dispose of the matter under the provisions of Article 15.  It further stipulates that the Soldier will be informed of the following:  the right to remain silent, that he/she is not required to make any statement regarding the offense or offenses of which he/she is suspected, and that any statement made may be used against the Soldier in the Article 15 proceedings or in any other proceedings, including a trial by court-martial.  It further states the Soldier will be informed of the right to counsel, to demand trial by court-martial, to fully present his/her case in the presence of the imposing commander, to call witnesses, present evidence, to request to be accompanied by a spokesperson, to request an open hearing, and to examine available evidence. 

15.  Paragraph 3-37(b-1) of Army Regulation 27-10 states that for Soldiers SPC or CPL and below (prior to punishment) the original Article 15 will be filed locally in unit nonjudicial punishment or unit personnel files.  Such locally-filed originals will be destroyed at the end of 2 years from the date of imposition of punishment or on the Soldier’s transfer to another General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA), whichever occurs first.  

16.  Paragraph 3-43 of Army Regulation 27-10 contains guidance on the transfer or removal of records of nonjudicial punishment (DA Form 2627) from the OMPF. It states, in pertinent part, applications for removal of an Article 15 from the OMPF based on an error or injustice will be made to the Army Board for 
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  It further indicates that there must be clear and compelling evidence to support the removal of a properly completed, facially valid DA Form 2627 from a Soldier’s record by the ABCMR.

17.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. 

18.  Paragraph 7-2 of Army Regulation 600-37 contains guidance on appeals for removal of OMPF entries.  It states, in pertinent part, the burden of proof to support removal of a document filed in the OMPF rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.  The regulation provides provisions that allow the transfer of a DA Form 2627 from the performance portion to the restricted section of the OMPF.  However, there are no provisions for removing a DA Form 2627 from the OMPF.

19.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF.  This document states that only those documents listed in Table 2-1 and Table
2-2 are authorized for filing in the OMPF.  Depending on the purpose, documents will be filed in the OMPF in one of three sections:  performance, service, or restricted.  Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 shows that the DA Form 2627 is filed in either the performance or restricted section of the OMPF, as directed in Item 5 of the DA Form 2627.

20.  Paragraph 2-3 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 provides, in pertinent part, that the restricted section of the OMPF is used for historical data that may normally be improper for viewing by selection boards or career managers.  The release of information in this section is controlled.  It will not be released without written approval from the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (i.e., for enlisted Soldiers, formerly designated as Headquarters, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center) or the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) selection board proponent.  This paragraph also provides that documents in the restricted section of the OMPF are those that must be permanently kept to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods; 
show corrections to other parts of the OMPF; record investigation reports and 
appellate actions; and protect the interests of the Soldier and the Army.


21.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that Soldiers may be separated on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.  Such conditions may include, but are not limited to – Chronic Airsickness; Chronic Seasickness; Enuresis, Sleepwalking; Dyslexia; Severe Nightmares; Claustrophobia; and other disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties are significantly impaired.  It further indicates that when a commander determines that a Soldier has a physical or mental condition that potentially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty, the commander will refer the Soldier for a medical examination and/or mental status evaluation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant and counsel contend that all three DA Forms 2627 should be removed from the applicant's OMPF and that his rank should be restored to that of SGT with entitlement to all pay and allowances.

2.  With respect to the first Article 15, dated 24 May 2007, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant, a SGT, in a leadership position, was counseled on multiple occasions by members of his chain of command regarding his responsibility to be present during morning accountability formation.  In each case he indicated that he agreed with the key points of the counseling sessions.  He did not indicate or address any medical conditions or issues that would have prevented or delayed him from being at the prescribed place of duty.

3.  After several incidents of failure to report to accountability formations and after being notified and afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, the applicant elected not to demand a trial by court-martial and chose to have his case disposed of through Article 15 proceedings at a closed hearing with his company commander.  The applicant had the opportunity to decline the Article 15 at any time prior to the imposition of punishment being announced and demand trial by court-martial.  His election to accept the Article 15 was simply a choice.  However, by his electing to accept the Article 15, he put the issue of guilt or innocence in the hands of his commander rather than a panel of several officers and/or enlisted members.  Furthermore, he elected not to appeal his punishment.

4.  The evidence of record shows that the DA Form 2627, dated 24 May 2007, and allied documents are properly filed in the restricted portion of the applicant's OMPF as directed by the imposing commander.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides no evidence to show that the DA Form 2627 and allied documents are untrue or unjust.  By regulation, in order to remove a document from the OMPF, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that the document is untrue or unjust.  Therefore, the DA Form 2627 and allied documents are properly filed and should remain in the restricted portion of the applicant's OMPF.

5.  With respect to the second Article 15, dated 13 September 2007, the applicant, a SGT in a leadership position, having been previously counseled regarding his responsibility to be at his prescribed place of duty, failed to do so.   Subsequent to a closed hearing at which time the applicant presented matters of defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation, NJP action was imposed for the applicant’s violations of the UCMJ.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to SPC, as well as restriction, extra duty, and a suspended forfeiture of pay.  The imposing commander directed this Article 15 be filed on the performance portion of his OMPF.  

6.  The applicant subsequently appealed his punishment.  In his appeal, he indicated that he understood that as an NCO he is held to a higher standard and further added that he knew he was wrong to miss morning formation and appealed for a chance to show that he could lead from the front and set the example by turning his mistake into a lesson learned.  In support of his appeal, the applicant also provided several character reference letters.  The higher commander considered the applicant's appeal, as well as the character statements, and denied his appeal.  Additionally, the applicant mentioned his physical profile but did not submit evidence to explain the impact of his medications.

7.  The evidence of record shows that the second DA Form 2627, dated 13 September 2007, and allied documents are also properly filed in the performance portion of his OMPF as directed by the imposing commander.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides no evidence, to show that the DA Form 2627 and allied documents are untrue or unjust.  Again, by regulation, in order to remove a document from the OMPF, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing that the document is untrue or unjust.  Therefore, the DA Form 2627 and allied documents are properly filed and should remain in the performance portion of the applicant's OMPF.

8.  With respect to the applicant's third Article 15, dated 18 October 2007, this Article 15 is not and should not be posted to his OMPF.  Additionally, neither the applicant nor his counsel provided a copy of this form with the application.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 directs that a record of nonjudicial punishment for a Soldier in the rank of SPC or CPL and below be filed locally only.  It is presumed that the imposing commander lined through line 5 (filing) of this form to indicate that it would be filed locally.  The applicant is essentially requesting the Board find this Article 15 unjust, but again has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his position.

9.  With respect to the applicant's reinstatement to SGT, the applicant's second Article 15 reduced him to SPC and his third Article 15 presumably reduced him to PV1.  However, there is insufficient evidence to show that his punishments were harsh or unjust.  The applicant violated certain provisions of the UCMJ and his commanders properly utilized the nonjudicial punishment option when they determined that nonpunitive measures were inadequate or inappropriate.  The resultant punishment in each instance was imposed after the imposing commander considered the facts presented and the applicant's overall service record.  In each instance, the imposing commander exercised his command authority and used his judgment in what he considered legally and morally appropriate.  This Board should not second-guess the commander's decision of preserving a Soldier’s record of service from unnecessary stigma by record of court-martial conviction and/or furthering military efficiency by disposing of minor offenses in a manner requiring less time and personnel than trial by court-martial.

10.  Notwithstanding the applicant's medical condition, there is no evidence that the applicant addressed an alternate accountability formation plan with members of his chain of command or that the applicant addressed his medical concerns with members of his chain of command during his counseling session.  Contrary to counsel's contention that his commanders abandoned him, as soon as it was determined that a correlation between the applicant's medical condition and his performance may have existed, the separation authority ordered him retained on active duty and subsequently reassigned to the WTU. 

11.  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)                                         AR20090001576



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090001576



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1