IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 December 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090007945 


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 correction of his military records to show that he retained his rank as staff sergeant, pay grade E-6; that he received de facto status for pay; that he continued his latest enlistment contract; and that a memorandum be placed into his official military personnel file (OMPF) stating the facts concerning his reduction from sergeant first class to sergeant, pay 
grade E-5.

2.  The applicant makes a four-page statement in the form of a timeline of events covering the period 6 November 2003 through July 2008.  The main points are as follows:

	a.  6 November 2003:  The applicant, while serving in Iraq, received a hearing concerning his misconduct and nonjudicial punishment (NJP).  He was reduced from staff sergeant, pay grade E-6 to sergeant, pay grade E-5.  He was reduced immediately, but the processing of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) was not completed. 

	b.  21 February 2004:  The applicant redeployed to Greensboro, North Carolina.  He was released from active duty and transferred to his troop program unit.  His unit personnel asked about his reduction paperwork and the DA Form 2627.  Both the applicant and the unit could not locate these documents.  He was still receiving pay as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, but was wearing sergeant, pay grade E-5 stripes.  His unit tried to locate the paperwork for several months.  The 1st Armored Division was contacted in Germany as well as their then current location in Georgia.  No one had any record of the NJP or reduction.
	c.  March through December 2004:  throughout the year, the applicant asked his S-1 (Personnel Officer) about the status of his rank and pay.  He was told that without the documents, not much could be done.

	d.  April to June 2005:  The applicant asked his battalion command sergeant major to get clarification of his status.  The battalion commander took the matter up to the brigade commander, who also did not have a ready solution.  In June 2005, the action came down through the chain of command to the battalion commander who was given the option to re-submit the NJP or to vacate the punishment.  The battalion commander chose to vacate the punishment and permit the applicant to wear staff sergeant rank again.

	e.  June, 2005:  The applicant asked the battalion commander if he was authorized to submit a promotion packet for sergeant first class, pay grade E-7.  The command sergeant major did not see any reason to not allow him to do so. 

	f.  August 2005:  The applicant submitted a promotion packet.  He was promoted to sergeant first class, pay grade E-7 effective 13 September 2005.

	g.  March 2006:  The original DA Form 2627 was filed in his OMPF.  The applicant had been performing the duties of a sergeant first class, pay grade E-7 for 6 months.

	h.  April 2006:  The applicant was assigned for duty as a primary instructor with the 1st Training Brigade, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

   i.  October 2006:  The applicant reenlisted as a sergeant first class, pay grade E-7, with an indefinite period of service.  He received a $15,000 reenlistment bonus. 

	j.  August 2007:  The applicant was scheduled to attend the Advanced Noncommissioned Officers Course (ANCOC) for Civil Affairs.  About 5 days prior to the start of this course, he was informed by his chain of command that he had been flagged and would not be attending the course.  He was also told that an investigation was started to find out why he was promoted to sergeant first class.  He was told to change his rank as recorded on his DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period                8 December 2006 to 21 August 2007, from sergeant first class to sergeant.

	k.  January 2008:  The investigation starts.  It was a "prosecuting" investigation rather than a "fact finding" investigation.  It had been almost 5 years since the event of the NJP.  He was not able to recall all of the events clearly.  If he had forgotten something, or had added or changed anything, he was thought to be lying.

	l.  January 2008:  The installation Staff Judge Advocate's office was deployed and would only help him should the matter go to trial.

	m.  July 2008:  The brigade command sergeant major provided the applicant  a DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer), 5 pages; a copy of the original DA Form 2627; orders promoting him to sergeant first class; orders revoking his promotion to sergeant first class; and two pages of his personnel records.  He was informed that effective at that time he was demoted down to sergeant.  The applicant inquired about his pay and debt.  He was told that "they" are working on it.  He was also informed that he would most likely have to pay back the reenlistment bonus and pay earned as a sergeant first class.  The applicant inquired how this reduction would affect the future of his career.  He was concerned about not ever getting another promotion and how this large debt would ruin him financially.  He did not receive any definitive answers.  

	n.  July 2008:  The brigade command sergeant major told the applicant that resigning his reenlistment would clarify that matter.

	o.  July 2008:  The applicant was informed that when his mobilization orders ended in February 2009, he would no longer be needed in the 1st Training Brigade.  The applicant would be returned to his troop program unit.    

3.  The applicant provides, in support of his application, the following documents:

	a.  time line of events;

	b.  DA Form 2627;

	c.  Promotion Orders 117-58, from specialist, pay grade E-4, to sergeant, pay grade E-5;

	d.  Revocation Orders 08-193-00026, for promotion to sergeant first class;

	e.  DA Forms 2166-8 (eight reports) covering his performance from January 2003 through 30 March 2008;

	f.  two letters of support;

	g.  memorandum (eight pages) providing legal review of Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 investigation; and
	h.  DA Form 1574 (five pages);

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  At the time of his application, the applicant was serving on active duty as sergeant, pay grade E-5, U.S. Army Reserve.  He was training in preparation for deployment to Afghanistan at the end of June 2009.

2.  A DA Form 2627 indicates that on 2 December 2003, the Commander, 1st Armored Division, informed the applicant that he was considering whether the applicant should receive NJP for failing to obey a lawful general order by wrongfully possessing an unauthorized weapon.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel.  He did not demand trial by court-martial.  He requested a closed hearing and did not request a person to speak on his behalf.  Matters in defense, mitigation, and/or extenuation were not presented.  The applicant signed the form and dated it 6 November 2003. The commander, in a closed hearing, imposed a punishment of reduction to sergeant, pay grade E-5 and directed filing of the original DA Form 2627 in the applicant's OMPF.  The commander signed the form on 6 December 2003.  The applicant indicated that he did not appeal the punishment and again signed the form on 6 November 2003. 

3.  The applicant's DA Forms 2166-8 show the following:

   a.   that for the period from January to November 2003, the applicant performed duty as a staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 16 November 1997;
   
   b.  that for the period from October to November 2003, the applicant was relieved for cause as a staff sergeant, for violating 1st Armored Division orders concerning authorized weapons;
   
   c.  that for the period from December 2003 to February 2004, the applicant was a sergeant, pay grade E-5 with a date of rank of 12 December 2003; 
   
   d.  that for the period from March 2004 to February 2005, the applicant performed duty as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, with a date of rank of 
16 November 1997;

	e.  that for the period from March 2005 to February 2006, the applicant performed duty as a sergeant first class, pay grade E-7, with a date of rank of 
5 October 2005;
	f.  that for the period from 1 March 2006 to 7 December 2006, the applicant performed duty as a sergeant first class, pay grade E-7, with a date of rank of      1 September 2005;

	g.  that for the period 8 December 2006 to 21 August 2007, the applicant performed duty as a sergeant, pay grade E-5, with a date of rank of 2 December 2003; and

	h.  that for the period 22 August 2007 to 30 March 2008, the applicant performed duty as a sergeant, pay grade E-5, with a date of rank of 2 December 2003.

4.  A DA Form 1574, dated 4 January 2008, reported the following findings:

	a.  that the applicant received NJP with reduction to sergeant effective immediately;

	b.  that for unknown reasons, the NJP was never submitted to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) resulting in erroneous continuation of the applicant's pay as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6;

	c.  that the applicant further exacerbated the problem by certifying in 2005 that he was eligible to compete for promotion to sergeant first class, pay 
grade E-7;

	d.  that the applicant was promoted to sergeant first class, pay grade E-7 effective 1 September 2005, and had been paid as such to the date of the report;

	e.  that in January 2007, the applicant received a reenlistment bonus of $15,000.00, which DFAS contends is subject to recoupment;

	f.  that the applicant admitted to receiving a copy of the DA Form 2627 and knew he had been reduced to sergeant, pay grade E-5; and

	g.  that the battalion command sergeant major had [restored] his rank to staff sergeant and permitted him to submit a promotion packet.

5.  A DA Form 1574, dated 4 January 2008, reported the following comments and recommendations:

   a.  that the applicant was not at fault for the command's failure to reduce him to sergeant, pay grade E-5; 
   
   b.  that the applicant was not at fault for the command's failure to ensure his eligibility to compete for promotion to staff sergeant, pay grade E-6 by appearing before a promotion board;
   
   c.  that the applicant should have done the right thing by refusing to accept 
E-6 pay, recusing himself from consideration for promotion to staff sergeant, and not accepting any reenlistment bonus;

	d.  that the applicant's rank be adjusted to sergeant, pay grade E-5, effective 2 December 2003;

	e.  that the applicant, concurrent with any DFAS recoupment action, receive further NJP based on his initially failing to tell the truth, being negligent in submitting his DA Form 2627, and false swearing to the validity of official government documents; and

	f.  that a separate AR 15-6 investigation be initiated with the applicant's commander and command sergeant major as respondents.

6.  On 10 January 2008, the appointing authority approved the findings and recommendations of the investigating officer and directed a follow-up investigation of the battalion leadership, citing the commander and command sergeant major by name.

7.  In a memorandum dated 29 February 2008, the Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, provided a legal review of the AR 15-6 investigation.  It provides the following comments and recommendations:

	a.  that the applicant, while at the Bagdad Zoo, shot and killed a tiger that was attacking another Soldier.  This incident became the subject of considerable negative publicity and embarrassment to the Army.  The specific extent of the applicant's culpability is uncertain.  He ultimately received NJP on 6 December 2003, for having used an unauthorized weapon.  There was no evidence showing he was intoxicated at the time or that he was the senior individual with some kind of command responsibility;  

	b.  that the applicant did not exercise his right to appeal the punishment; therefore, the reduction from staff sergeant to sergeant became effective immediately.  Promotion to and reduction from the rank of staff sergeant normally rests with the battalion commander.  This means that the applicant's battalion commander had the responsibility to carry out the imposed reduction;

	c.  that the applicant's NCOER for the period from December 2003 to February 2004 shows he signed it as a sergeant, pay grade E-5;

	d.  that the applicant's NCOER for the period from March 2004 to February 2005 shows he signed it as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6;

	e.  that the applicant had apparently resumed the rank of staff sergeant;

	f.  that the applicant's NCOER for the period from March 2005 to February 2006 shows him as a sergeant first class with a date of rank of 5 October 2005;

	g.  that the NCOER ending in February 2006 is extremely favorable and that with the single exception of the "zoo incident," the applicant had been an exceptionally good NCO;

	h.  that there may have been a misguided belief that the battalion commander had to publish a reduction order to effect the imposed NJP even though regulatory guidance clearly stated that the DA Form 2627 did not require such an order;

	i.  that the record contains references to the then battalion commander and command sergeant major having told the applicant that he should essentially ignore the reduction; thereby exceeding the scope of their authority to accomplish what was essentially an informal setting aside of the reduction that had been imposed by the NJP;

	j.  that on 5 December 2007, the applicant completed a DA Form 2823 stating his understanding of the situation indicating that he believed the battalion commander and the command sergeant major could choose to ignore his reduction, allow him to submit a promotion packet for consideration to sergeant first class, and to allow him to reenlist as a sergeant first class;

	k.  that the totality of the circumstances as described in the investigation supports the conclusion that the applicant's conduct during the series of events in question resulted in his continuing to assume the rank of staff sergeant and to wear the insignia of that rank;

	l.  that the memorandum initiating the investigation clearly suggested the possibility that the applicant had committed criminal acts in violation of the UCMJ.  Therefore, this should have been a formal investigation with the applicant as the respondent;

	m.  that it is unlikely the applicant's sworn statement could be considered as evidence in any UCMJ proceedings, but was highly relevant for use in any administrative proceeding;

	n.  that the investigating officer's conclusions indicate a need for further investigation into the actions taken by the battalion leadership regarding the applicant then as a staff sergeant.  The acts and omissions of a battalion commander are of much greater significance than the actions of a single NCO;

	o.  that the evidence of record strongly suggests that his unit deliberately failed to ensure that he was actually reduced from staff sergeant to sergeant; and that the documentary evidence, admissions made by the applicant, and the conclusions of the investigating officer, it appears that the commander and command sergeant major chose to ignore the reduction in rank and that the applicant was at least complicit in going along with their unauthorized action.

	p.  that since the applicant's actual rank is sergeant, pay grade E-5, it is necessary to make a formal determination regarding his quality of service in the higher rank of sergeant first class and if his pay should be recouped or he should be granted "de facto" status;
   
   q.  that the applicant's battalion should make a search of records to determine if he was ever promoted to staff sergeant subsequent to December 2003 and prior to 1 September 2005; and that if not so promoted, he should be eligible for consideration based on a date of rank of 6 December 2003;
   
   r.  that the applicant's quality of service as a sergeant first class qualified him for de facto status;
   
   s.  that any reenlistment bonus already received should not be recouped; but that if no such bonus was available for a sergeant, pay grade E-5, then the reenlistment contract should be voided;
   
   t.  that the applicant should not receive a court-martial or NJP because his statement was made without being advised of his rights; and that his actions based on the misguided belief that his battalion commander could restore him to the rank of staff sergeant would make it very unlikely that he could be convicted;
   
   u.  that the applicant should not be processed for separation; and
   
   v.  that any further action against the applicant would be premature without a further AR 15-6 investigation to clarify these inconsistencies.

8.  In the processing this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Deputy Chief of Staff, G--1 (Personnel Officer), U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia.  The opinion provided the following comments and recommendations:
	
	a.  On 18 September 2003, the applicant, while deployed to Iraq, joined a group of Soldiers on a recreational outing to the Bagdad Zoo.  During this outing, one of the Soldiers became intoxicated and reached into a tiger cage.  The tiger bit the Soldier, causing severe injuries to his hand.  The applicant shot and killed the tiger in an effort to assist his fellow Soldier.  As a result of this action, on        6 December 2003, the applicant received NJP (reduction to sergeant, pay grade E-5) for use of an unauthorized weapon (AK-47 rifle). 

	b.  Exactly what happened concerning the imposition of the NJP is not known.  The DA Form 2627 was not properly processed.  Had the DA Form 2627 been properly processed, a copy would have been submitted to DFAS to adjust his rank and pay grade.  Additionally, a copy of the DA Form 2627 would have been submitted to the S-1 (Personnel Officer) to update the applicant's personnel records to reflect the reduction in rank and pay grade.  The S-1 would also have submitted the form for file in the applicant's OMPF.  These actions did not occur.  

	c.  Due to the non-availability of substantiating documentation, the applicant's personnel records were not updated to reflect the reduction in rank and pay grade.  

	d.  In April 2005, the applicant wanted to submit his packet for promotion consideration to staff sergeant.  However, his records still showed him as a staff sergeant, pay grade E-6.  He requested guidance from his chain of command to resolve this issue.  Two months later he was informed that the reduction had been vacated and he would be allowed to return to his former grade.

	e.  In August 2005, the applicant, believing his rank to be staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, submitted his packet to the Senior Promotion Board for consideration to sergeant first class.  He was subsequently selected and promoted on 
13 September 2005.

	f.  In March 2006, the DA Form 2627 was placed in the applicant's OMPF.

	g.  On 19 October 2006, the applicant reenlisted in the rank of sergeant first class, pay grade E-7 for an indefinite term of service with a $15,000.00 bonus.

	h.  In August 2007, the applicant was notified by his command that he was under investigation concerning his promotion to sergeant first class.
	i.  Penalizing a Soldier over a 5 year period for one act of misconduct is unreasonable and harsh.  

	j.  The command's failure to properly process the DA Form 2627 was the primary cause of the applicant's problems following his redeployment from Iraq and release from active duty.  Additionally, a contributing factor was the applicant's loss of his copy of the DA Form 2627.  Although everyone had full knowledge that the NJP was administered, the personnel and financial systems could not be updated without the legal documentation. 

	k.  The applicant attempted to obtain the documentation required to update his records.  This is corroborated by his email communications with the unit administrator.  Due to the fact the updating of his records was beyond his control, recommend that all payments received in the pay grade E-6 while actually an E-5 during the period from 6 December 2005 to 12 September 2005 be determined to be in a de facto status.

	l.  In April 2005, the applicant met all eligibility requirements, with the exception of grade, for promotion to sergeant first class, pay grade E-7.  The applicant requested a resolution to the problems associated with his NJP and subsequent reduction.  The applicant's commander was the same individual both in Iraq and afterward at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  In accordance with regulatory guidance, the promotion authority to staff sergeant, pay grade E-6 is the battalion commander.  In June 2005, the applicant was told that higher headquarters had determined that the battalion commander had the authority to vacate the reduction.  Both the battalion commander and the command sergeant major permitted the applicant to submit a promotion packet to the Senior Promotion Board.  Based on these two events, it is not unreasonable to believe that the applicant thought he had retained his rank as a staff sergeant.  Both the battalion commander and command sergeant major believed that he did. 

	m.  The promotion to sergeant first class requires more than just being a staff sergeant, it requires a stringent examination of his performance.  The applicant's past performance of duty and experience indicated to the Senior Promotion Board that he possessed the talents expected of a senior NCO.  Based on the applicant's performance of duty since 6 December 2003, recommend that the promotion to sergeant first class, effective 13 September 2005, be changed to promotion to staff sergeant.  This would put the Soldier back on a similar timeline for future promotion considerations just as if he had been reduced and was reconsidered and selected for promotion to staff sergeant almost 2 years after his reduction.  In addition, recommend that the applicant's reenlistment contract be changed to reflect that he reenlisted indefinitely in the grade of staff sergeant with a $15,000.00 bonus.
	n.  The applicant has been performing the duties and carrying the responsibilities for the position of sergeant first class.  Recommend that all payments for performance of duty in the pay grade of E-7 be considered as de facto status.

9.  Army Regulation 27-10 (Military Justice) prescribes the policies and procedures pertaining to the administration of military justice.  Chapter 3 implements and amplifies Article 15, UCMJ.  It states, in pertinent part, that the basis for any set aside action is a determination that under all of the circumstances of the case, the punishment has resulted in a clear injustice.  "Clear Injustice" means that there exists an unwaived legal or factual error that clearly and affirmatively injured the substantial rights of the soldier.

10.  Army Regulation 27-10 further prescribes the guidelines for the filing of NJP.  It states, in pertinent part, that the decision to file the original DA Form 2627 on the performance or restricted fiche of the OMPF will be determined by the imposing commander at the time punishment is imposed.  The filing decision of the imposing commander is final and will be indicated in item 5, DA Form 2627.  

11.  Army Regulation 27-10 further provides that unsuspended punishments of reduction take effect on the date imposed, unless appealed.   In those cases where the execution of the punishment legitimately must be delayed (for example, the Soldier is hospitalized, placed on quarters, authorized emergency leave or while on a brief period of TDY or a brief field problem, or in the case of Army Reserve Soldiers any periods that may intervene from times when they are in a Title 10, U.S. Code duty status), the execution of the punishment should begin immediately thereafter.  The delay in executed punishment should not exceed 30 days, or in the case of Army Reserve Soldiers, should not exceed the period that would include the next 30 days (however interrupted) in which that Army Reserve Soldier is in a Title 10, U.S. Code duty status.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests correction of his military records to show that he retained his rank as staff sergeant, pay grade E-6; that he received de facto status for pay; that he continued his latest enlistment contract; and that a memorandum was placed into his OMPF stating the facts concerning his reduction from sergeant first class to sergeant, pay grade E-5.

2.  The evidence in this case suggests that NJP was properly imposed against the applicant in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time, with no indications of any procedural errors that may have jeopardized his rights.  
3.  It appears that the applicant incorrectly dated his elections and signatures on the DA Form 2627.  While this error does not effectively diminish the intent of the document, it does show a lack of attention by the command at the time.

4.  Since the applicant did not elect to appeal his punishment, it was to be effective immediately.  However, for unknown reasons, the command did not promptly process his NJP, resulting in a delay that greatly exceeded the 30 day standard provided in the governing regulation.  

5.  The command's failure to properly process the DA Form 2627 resulted in the applicant suffering for more than 5 years.  This is unreasonable, harsh, and effectively resulted in his not receiving a fair and just due process of law.    

6.  The investigating officer concluded that the applicant was not at fault for the command's failure to immediately reduce him to sergeant, pay grade E-5.  However, he did believe that the applicant was at least complicit in going along with the commander's actions concerning the restoration of his rank and pay grade.

7.  It is very reasonable to believe that the unauthorized actions of his battalion commander and command sergeant major led the applicant to honestly believe his rank was restored.

8.  Both the investigating officer and the advisory opinion clearly state that        the applicant deserves a certain amount of relief in this case.  They, in effect, suggest that the applicant's record should be corrected to show that he was promoted to staff sergeant, pay grade E-6, with an effective date of                    13 September 2005; that his reenlistment be corrected to show his rank as staff sergeant at the time and to retain the $15,000.00 bonus, and to receive de facto status for time served as a sergeant first class, pay grade E-7.

9.  While this restores the applicant in some measure, it ignores a bigger principle that should guide this case - detrimental reliance.  The applicant resumed his pay grade of E-6 based upon the documented representations of his chain of command and he performed duties commensurate with that rank.  Also relying upon representations from his chain of command that the NJP was set aside, he applied for and received a promotion to pay grade E-7 in August 2005.  Most importantly, he relied upon that promotion in reenlisting in October 2006.  Based upon all of the representations he received, he signed that enlistment contract with the understanding he would serve in a capacity commensurate with an E-7 and receive pay in that grade.  He then fulfilled his end of that bargain through his service.  The applicant now simply wants to hold the Army to this contract, which is appropriate since he has performed in accordance with the terms of the agreement.  Accordingly, it is appropriate to enforce the terms of the enlistment contract.  It is also appropriate to set aside the NJP based upon the applicant's reliance on representations from the chain of command.

10.  As a matter of equity, and notwithstanding the recommendations of the investigating officer and the advisory opinion, the applicant's records should be corrected by removing all evidence of the NJP, restoring him to sergeant first class with his original effective date and date of rank, and to correct his NCOERs to reflect his grade as staff sergeant and sergeant first class, as appropriate.

BOARD VOTE:

____x____  ___x_____  ____x____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by:

   a.  removing the DA Form 2627 from his OMPF as well as any other documents that resulted from the NJP not specifically identified herein;
   
   b.  removing the DA Form 2166-8 (Relief for Cause) for the period from October 2003 to November 2003;
   
   c.  placing a statement in his OMPF explaining that the 2 month gap in his performance evaluations was not due to his fault  and should not be considered as derogatory;
   
   d.  correcting his records to show that he was promoted to sergeant first class with the same effective date and date of rank as the original orders;
   
   e.  correcting the DA Form 2166-8, for the period from December 2003 to February 2004, to show his rank as staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 
16 November 1997;
   
   f.  correcting the DA Form 2166-8, for the period from March 2005 to February 2006, to show his date of rank as 13 September 2005;
   
   g.  correcting the DA Form 2166-8, for the period from 8 December 2006 to 
21 August 2007, to show his rank as sergeant first class and date of rank as 
13 September 2005;

	h.  correcting the DA Form 2166-8, for the period from 22 August 2007 to 
30 March 2008, to show his rank as sergeant first class and date of rank as 
13 September 2005;

	i.  correcting any subsequent DA Forms 2166-8 to show his correct rank and date of rank in accordance with this records correction; and

	j.  auditing the applicant's records in accordance with the Board's corrections and, as appropriate, recalculate any debt claimed and pay any back pay and allowances due.




      _______ _   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)                                         AR20090007945





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090007945



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1