IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE: 	        30 June 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090003450 


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, the Article 15 action imposed against him be expunged from his records, reinstatement of his grade of sergeant (SGT)/pay grade E-5, and correction of his records to show he was medically retired due to severe post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by combat experiences.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the U.S. Army wrongly discharged him for a personality disorder (i.e., physical condition, not a disability) and, as a result, the authority, separation code, and narrative reason for his discharge are incorrect.  He also states that Army officials failed to complete a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and also failed to convene a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) on him to provide a finding of unfitness due to severe PTSD with a disability rating of at least 70 percent.  The applicant further states that the alleged misconduct resulting in an Article 15 action and his subsequent demotion was the result of extreme extenuating circumstances, not a willful violation of General Order Number 1, and therefore not warranted.  The applicant concludes by stating the manner in which the Article 15 hearing was conducted was a violation of his procedural due process rights.  The applicant adds that a formal brief and evidence forthcoming from his attorneys will detail the reasons for injustice and error.

3.  The applicant provides copies of a Latham & Watkins, LLP, San Diego, California, letter, dated 19 December 2008, subject:  DD Form 149 on Behalf of [Applicant]:  Request for Documents, and National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), Privacy Act Waiver, dated 14 April 2008, with an expiration date of 14 April 2013.
COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, the Article 15 action imposed against the applicant be expunged from his records, reinstatement of the applicant’s grade of SGT (E-5), and correction of the applicant’s records to show he was medically retired due to severe PTSD caused by combat experiences.

2.  Counsel also requests, in effect, all advisory opinions (oral or written and from internal or external sources), including any opinions rendered by professional personnel, staff briefs or memoranda, and military or civilian investigative reports and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) rap sheets, obtained or prepared for use and consideration by the Army Review Boards Agency pertaining to the applicant’s application be provided to applicant’s counsel before consideration by the Board.

3.  Counsel provides no additional documentary evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military personnel records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) for a period of 8 years on 5 September 2003 and he entered the Delayed Entry Program.  He was discharged from the USAR on 7 January 2004 and enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years on 8 January 2004.  Upon completion of basic combat and advanced individual training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  The applicant continued to serve on active duty in the RA and attained the grade of SGT (E-5) effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 April 2007.  He served in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 10 January to 30 December 2005 and from 15 January to 20 July 2007.

2.  The applicant's military personnel records contain a DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]), dated 26 October 2007.  This document shows, on 3 October 2007, the major serving as the Commander, 1st Brigade Combat Team (Rear) (Provisional), 3rd Infantry Division (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Stewart, Georgia, notified the applicant that he was considering punishment of the applicant under Article 15, UCMJ, in that he did, at or near Camp Blue Diamond, Iraq, on or about 7 July 2007, violate a lawful general order, to wit:  General Order Number 1, Headquarters, Multi-National Corps - Iraq (MNC-I), dated 16 December 2006, by wrongfully consuming alcohol within the MNC-I area of responsibility; this in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.

   a.  Item 2 of the DA Form 2627, in pertinent part, contains the statement, "If you do not want me to dispose of this report of misconduct under Article 15, you have the right to demand trial by court-martial instead.  In deciding what you want to do you have the right to consult with legal counsel located at TDS [Trial Defense Services], Building 474 (Mon[day] and Wed[nesday], 0900 [hours].  You now have 48 hours to decide what you want to do."

   b.  On 9 October 2007, the applicant acknowledged in item 3 (with his initials and signature) that he was afforded the right to consult with counsel, did not demand trial by court-martial, requested a closed hearing, that a person to speak in his behalf was not requested; and that matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation would be presented in person.

   c.  The DA Form 2627 shows that in a closed hearing, all matters presented in defense, mitigation and/or extenuation having been considered, the commander imposed the following punishment:  reduction to the grade of Specialist (E-4); forfeiture of $941.00 pay per month for one month (suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 9 March 2008), 45 days of restriction to the limits of Fort Stewart, Georgia; and 45 days of extra duty.  The commander also directed that the DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted portion of the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  This document also shows the applicant appealed the action and submitted additional matters in mitigation and extenuation.

	d.  On 10 October 2007, Captain Angela S____, a commissioned officer serving in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the U.S. Army, considered the appeal and, in her opinion, found the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation and the punishments imposed were not unjust nor disproportionate to the offense committed. 

	e.  On 26 October 2007, the lieutenant colonel serving as the Commander, 3rd Infantry Division (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Stewart, Georgia, after consideration of all matters presented in appeal, denied the applicant’s appeal.

	f.  Item 11 (Allied Documents and/or Comments) contains the entry "Para. 
3-18(f)(1), AR 27-10 complied with."  This item also lists six enclosures that were considered in the Article 15 proceedings that included the applicant’s Enlisted Record Brief (ERB), dated 8 July 2007; DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 9 July 2007; seven DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statements), all dated 9 July 2007; Urinalysis Results (i.e., Laboratory Services, Company C, 501st Forward Support Battalion, Camp Ramadi (Iraq), Laboratory Results Form), dated 8 July 2007 with Standard Form 513 (Medical Record - Consultation Sheet), dated 7 July 2007 and DA Form 2823, dated 8 July 2007; DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)), dated 4 October 2007; and Headquarters, MNC-I, Baghdad, Iraq, General Order Number 1, dated 16 December 2006.

   g.  The applicant’s OMPF contains a coversheet titled Matters in Mitigation and Extenuation, Field Grade Article 15 [Applicant’s Rank, Name, Unit], along with copies of a Personal Statement from the Applicant, a Personal Financial Evaluation, Medical Diagnoses of PTSD, List of Witnesses on Behalf of the Applicant, and Matters Correlating Abuse of Alcohol with PTSD.

3.  On 3 December 2007, the detachment commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 5 (Separation for Convenience of the Government), paragraph 5-17, for other designated physical or mental condition.  The specific reason for the commander’s proposed action was that on 2 October 2007, the applicant was diagnosed with Axis I mild PTSD and Alcohol Abuse, and Axis II Personality Disorder.

   a.  The commander stated he was recommending the applicant receive an honorable discharge.  The applicant was also advised of his rights.

   b.  The applicant’s administrative separation packet, in pertinent part, contains the following documents.

        (1)  Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 August 2007, that shows Doctor R. C____, Staff Psychiatrist, Wynn Army Community Hospital (WACH), Fort Stewart, Georgia, diagnosed the applicant with Axis I:  PTSD mild, Alcohol Abuse; Axis II:  Personality Disorder; and Axis III:  None.  This document also shows the doctor found the applicant was mentally sound and able to appreciate any wrongfulness in his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, and that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board or other administrative proceedings.

	     (2)  DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form), dated 4 October 2007, that shows the applicant was counseled by Sergeant First Class (SFC) 
Harley C. C____, Jr., Platoon Sergeant, based upon an evaluation provided to the applicant from the Division of Mental Health Clinic and Doctor C____ of the WACH, which diagnosed the applicant as having mild PTSD and Alcohol Abuse, and recommended the applicant be administratively separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-17.
   
        (3)  DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 5 October 2007, prepared for the purpose of documenting the applicant's separation medical examination.  Item 74a (Examinee/Applicant) shows that the medical officials conducting the examination indicated the applicant was qualified for service and, in pertinent part, separation under the provisions of a chapter discharge.

	     (4)  Headquarters, 3rd Battalion, 69th Armor, Fort Stewart, Georgia, memorandum, dated 5 October 2007, subject:  [Applicant’s Name and Social Security Number].  This document shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant’s detachment commander documented that he, the applicant, and SFC C____ met with Doctor C____ on 2 October 2007 and discussed the applicant’s medical diagnoses and UCMJ violation; it was determined that the applicant suffers from a mild case of PTSD and a Personality Disorder; and that the applicant’s violation of General Order Number 1 (i.e., drinking on duty while deployed to Iraq) was serious enough to be considered for a trial by court martial.  The detachment commander stated, "[m]ost Soldiers receive, at a minimum, a Chapter 14-12 for misconduct with an Other Than Honorable Discharge or General Discharge under Honorable Conditions when punished with a Field Grade Article 15 or Courts Martial while assigned to the Home Detachment."  The detachment commander also stated, "[H]owever, given his previous service record, medical condition and conduct while assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 69th Armored [Regiment], Home Detachment [the detachment commander] recommended [the applicant] receive a Field Grade Article 15 and a 5-17 Chapter for being physically and mentally unfit for duty."

4.  The applicant requested and consulted with legal counsel.  On 5 December 2007, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of his rights.  The applicant indicated that he understood he was not being considered for separation under other than honorable conditions 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, as the result of issuance of a discharge/characterization of service that is less than honorable, he may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for upgrading; however, that an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge will be upgraded.  The applicant and the commissioned officer (serving in the Judge Advocate General's Corps) who advised the applicant regarding the contemplated separation each affixed their signature to the document.
   
5.  The detachment commander reviewed the applicant’s statement of options and choices pertaining to the rights available to him and, based on the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s case, the detachment commander recommended the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army prior to his expiration term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, involuntary separation due to other mental condition.

   a.  The specific reason for the action recommended was that, on 2 October 2007, the applicant was diagnosed with Axis I:  mild PTSD and Alcohol Abuse and Axis II:  Personality Disorder.  The detachment commander added that the applicant was evaluated by the WACH, Behavioral Health Clinic, and received counseling and treatment at Division Mental Health and the Army Substance Abuse Program.

   b.  The detachment commander requested further rehabilitation requirements be waived and the applicant not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.

   c.  The detachment commander recommended approval of the separation action and that the applicant’s term of service be characterized as honorable.

6.  On 6 December 2007, the Commander, 1st Brigade Combat Team (Rear) (Provisional), 3rd Infantry Division (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Stewart, Georgia, reviewed the proposed separation action and recommended the applicant’s separation from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, involuntary separation due to other mental condition and that his service be characterized as honorable.  The commander also recommended the requirement for rehabilitative transfer be waived and that the applicant not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.

7.  On 7 December 2007, the captain serving as the Brigade Judge Advocate, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia, reviewed the elimination packet pertaining to the applicant and found the separation packet legally sufficient.

8.  On 10 December 2007, the Commander, 3rd Infantry Division (Rear) (Provisional), U.S. Army Garrison - Fort Stewart, Fort Stewart, Georgia, and the authorized separation authority in the applicant’s case, approved the applicant's administrative separation from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, involuntary separation due to other mental condition and directed the applicant’s service be characterized as honorable.  The commander also waived further rehabilitation requirements and directed the applicant not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 December 2007.
9.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms he was honorably discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, based on a condition, not a disability, with the separation code "JFV."  At the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 3 years, 11 months, and 11 days of net active service this period.  Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) contains the entry "SPC"; Item 4b (Pay Grade) contains the entry "E04"; and Item 12 (Record of Service), block h (Effective Date of Pay Grade), contains the entry "2007 10 09" (i.e., 9 October 2007).

10.  There is no evidence that the applicant was referred to an MEB or a PEB.

11.  There were no advisory opinions (oral or written, from external sources), no opinions rendered by professional personnel, no staff briefs or memoranda, and no military or civilian investigative reports or FBI rap sheets obtained or prepared pertaining to the applicant’s application for use and/or consideration by the Army Review Boards Agency, Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

12.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) implements, in part, the Department of Defense Reorganization Act and the Manual for Courts-Martial (2005), and includes changes on matters of policy and procedure pertaining to the administration of military justice within the Army.  Paragraph 3-18 (Notification and explanation of rights), subparagraph (f) (Decision period), in pertinent part, provides if the Soldier requests a decision period, the Soldier will be given a reasonable time to consult with counsel, including time off from duty, if necessary, to decide whether or not to demand trial.  The decision period will   not begin until the Soldier has received actual notice and explanation of rights under Article 15 and has been provided a copy of the DA Form 2627 with items  1 and 2 completed.  The Soldier will be advised that if the Soldier demands a trial, block 3a of the DA Form 2627 must be initialed and item 3 must be signed and dated within the decision period; otherwise, the commander will proceed under Article 15.  The decision period should be determined after considering factors such as the complexity of the case and the availability of counsel.  Normally, 48 hours is a reasonable decision period.  Item 11 of the DA Form 2627, will contain the following:  "Para 3-18f(1), AR 27-10 complied with."

13.  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.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file.  However, when discovered by the custodian or requested by the Soldier concerned, transfer documents mistakenly filed in the performance or service section to the restricted section of the OMPF.  Table 2-1 (Composition of the OMPF) of Army Regulation 600-8-104 shows that the DA Form 2627 may be filed in either the performance or restricted portion of the OMPF.

14.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) prescribes policies and procedures regarding unfavorable information considered for inclusion in official personnel files.  Chapter 7 (Appeals and Petitions), paragraph 7-2 (Policies and standards), in pertinent part, provides that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof 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.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, in pertinent part, provides that specified commanders may approve separation under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability (Army Regulation 635-40 - Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5-11 or 5-13 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 is significantly impaired.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD Code to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD of "JKV" as the appropriate code to assign to enlisted Soldiers administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, based on a condition, not a disability.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 1 (General Provisions), paragraph 1-33 (Disposition through medical channels), in pertinent part, provides that when the medical treatment (MTF) facility commander or attending medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for administrative separation under chapters 7, 14, or 15 does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention, he/she will refer the Soldier to an MEB.  The administrative separation proceedings will continue, but final action by the separation authority will not be taken, pending the results of the MEB.

18.  Army Regulation 635-40, 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.  Chapter 3 (Policies), 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.  To ensure all Soldiers are physically qualified to perform their duties in a reasonable manner, medical retention qualification standards have been established in Army Regulation 
40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), Chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement).  These standards include guidelines for applying them to fitness decisions in individual cases.  These guidelines are used to refer Soldiers to an MEB.

19.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.  Section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation with severance pay of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that the Article 15 action imposed against him should be expunged from his records, his grade of SGT (E-5) should be reinstated, and his records corrected to show he was medically retired due to PTSD because the manner in which the Article 15 hearing was conducted was a violation of his procedural due process rights, Army officials failed to complete an MEB and also failed to convene a PEB on him to provide a finding of unfitness due to severe PTSD with a disability rating of at least 70 percent, and the U.S. Army wrongly discharged him for a personality disorder (i.e., physical condition, not a disability).

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was notified by his commander that he was considering punishment of the applicant under Article 15, UCMJ, for violation of a lawful general order.
   a.  Records show that a Soldier has 48 hours (i.e., 2 days ) to consult with legal counsel and decide if he wants the commander to dispose of a report of misconduct under Article 15 or to demand trial by court-martial.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was afforded six (6) days to decide what he wanted to do in his case.

   b.  Records show the applicant acknowledged he was afforded the right to consult with counsel, did not demand trial by court-martial, requested a closed hearing, that a person to speak in his behalf was not requested; and that matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation would be presented in person.

	c.  Records show that in a closed hearing, all matters presented in defense, mitigation and/or extenuation having been considered, the commander imposed punishment and also directed that the DA Form 2627 be filed in the restricted portion of the applicant’s OMPF.

	d.  Records show the applicant appealed the action and submitted additional matters in mitigation and extenuation.  Records also show that a commissioned officer serving in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the U.S. Army considered the appeal and, in her opinion, found the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation and the punishments imposed were not unjust nor disproportionate to the offense committed.

	e.  Records show that the lieutenant colonel serving as the Commander, 3rd Infantry Division (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Stewart, Georgia, and the appeal authority in the applicant’s case, after consideration of all matters presented in appeal, denied the applicant’s appeal.  Records also show the DA Form 2627 and allied documents are filed in the applicant’s OMPF.

	f.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence, to support his claim "that the manner in which the Article 15 hearing was conducted was a violation of his procedural due process rights."  In fact, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was afforded more than a reasonable amount of time to consult with counsel to decide if he wanted the commander to dispose of the report of misconduct under Article 15 or to demand trial by court-martial.  In addition, the evidence of record shows that both the commander and the appeal authority in the applicant’s case considered all matters presented in defense, mitigation and/or extenuation.  Thus, the evidence of record refutes the applicant’s contention that the Article 15 hearing was conducted in a manner that violated his procedural due process rights.

3.  The evidence of record shows that, by regulation, once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof 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 applicant has failed to present such evidence.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the DA Form 2627 and allied documents in question should not be removed from the applicant’s OMPF.

4.  Because there is no evidence or error or injustice in the imposition of the Article 15 or its punishment, the applicant is not entitled correction of his records to show reinstatement of the grade of SGT (E-5).

5.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was diagnosed with mild (emphasis added) PTSD and Alcohol Abuse, and that the applicant received counseling and treatment for these medical conditions.

   a.  Records show that medical professional opinion found that the applicant was mentally sound and able to appreciate any wrongfulness in his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, and that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board or other administrative proceedings.

   b.  Records also show that the medical official conducting the applicant’s separation medical examination indicated the applicant was qualified for service and also separation under the provisions of an administrative discharge.
   
   c.  There is no evidence of record, and the applicant provides insufficient evidence, that shows the applicant was found unfit for retention in military service during the period of service under review.  It is noted that there is no evidence of record that shows the applicant was diagnosed with severe (emphasis added) PTSD, nor is there evidence of a finding of medical unfitness in the applicant’s case.
   
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 credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant fails to provide such evidence.  Thus, since there is no evidence of record to show that the applicant's medical conditions in question at the time were found medically unfitting for retention in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, there was no basis for referral of the applicant to a medical/physical evaluation board.



7.  The evidence of record shows the applicant’s honorable discharge, on 18 December 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, involuntary separation based on a condition, not a disability, was proper and equitable, and in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  In addition, all requirements of law and regulations were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Moreover, the evidence of record shows that the authority, narrative reason, and SPD Code recorded on the applicant’s discharge are valid and correct.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of his records in this case.

8.  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)                                         AR20090003450



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090003450



12


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1