IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  28 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110006349 


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 reconsideration through his Member of Congress of his earlier request that his 1991 discharge for misconduct be voided and that he be reinstated with full back pay plus interest and the rank he would have attained had he not been wrongfully separated and that he receive full retirement with benefits.

2.  The applicant's Member of Congress states that his office sent a letter of inquiry to the Department of the Army Legislative Liaison requesting two questions directed to the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) regarding a Soldier in the applicant's situation.  His office received a response on 20 October 2009.  The response stated that "in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1145, members of the Armed Forces scheduled to be separated from active duty are required to undergo a physical examination immediately before separation."  Additionally, Army Regulation 635-200 (Administrative Separations – Enlisted Personnel) states in paragraph 1-32 that mental status evaluations and medical examinations are required for Soldiers being processed for separation under chapter 14 for misconduct.  The response goes on to say that a Soldier will be referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB) if a medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for separation under chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention under Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).  The applicant was not afforded these rights as required by regulation.

3.  The Member of Congress also states that in a 30 June 1997 response to Congresswoman EBJ, the Army Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison (OCLL) stated that the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) advises that a Soldier cannot waive the required medical examination if he is pending a discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, section III, Army Regulation 
635-200.  Additionally, Army Regulation 40-501 states in chapter 3, paragraph 
3-3b, "Soldiers pending other than honorable administrative discharges will be referred to an MEB."

4.  He further states that in the applicant's first review by the Board on 6 August 1992, the Board stated on page 6, "The Board was convinced that all provisions of law and regulation were adhered to in this case and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process."  He asks, "How can this not be an error in his first review process?"

5.  He concludes that the applicant was discharged for misconduct without the required physical evaluation, mental status evaluation, medical examination, and MEB.  He, as well as the applicant, cannot understand how this was not an error that would have required the Board to overturn the discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He asks, "What recourse does the Army have in what appears to be obvious failures in following regulations in the discharge and in the Boards set up to review discharges and correct them not recognizing these errors or injustices?"

6.  The applicant and/or Member of Congress provide(s):

* letter from an official at OCLL, dated 20 June 1997
* letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) (DASA (RB)), dated 28 July 2009
* letter from OTJAG, dated 20 October 2009

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in:

* Docket Number AC92-10964 on 21 April 1993
* Docket Number AC92-10964A on 15 September 1993
* Docket Number AR2003096197 on 13 July 2004

2.  The applicant did not provide any additional evidence; however, his Member of Congress questioned certain points in a new argument which were not previously addressed by the ABCMR.  Although the applicant did not meet the two-tiered standard for reconsideration in that his request is more than 1 year after the Board's decision and the applicant failed to provide any new substantial evidence, due to Congressional interest, the new argument shall be considered new evidence and will be considered by the Board as an exception to policy.

3.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 June 1978 and held military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  He served through multiple extensions or reenlistments and attained the rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 3 February 1991.

4.  His records also show he served in Panama in support of Operation Just Cause and in Southwest Asia in support of Operations Desert Shield/
Desert Storm.  He was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Panama), Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award), Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award), Army Service Ribbon, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with Numeral 2, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

5.  He was assigned to the 387th Quartermaster Company and he deployed to Southwest Asia in November 1990 with his unit when it was ordered to active duty in support of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

6.  Late in the evening prior to the unit's deployment, the applicant attempted to speak to the Chief of Staff (CoS), Headquarters, Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN, concerning complaints about alleged incidents of discrimination.  He threatened to refuse movement if he could not speak with a Fort Benjamin Harrison authority.  The CoS, Headquarters, Fort Benjamin Harrison, met with the applicant and several other unit members and persuaded them to continue to obey lawful and proper orders (such as making movement) and indicated he would have Equal Opportunity personnel look into the complaints.

7.  On 25 December 1990, the applicant talked to the chaplain in theater and stated that members of his unit were "racially biased and intent on making him look bad."  The chaplain subsequently conducted in-depth interviews with Soldiers of all ethnic groups.  He found that none felt that race was an issue and that the applicant's fellow Soldiers were puzzled by the allegations.

8.  On 2 January 1991, the applicant communicated a threat to his commander and first sergeant (1SG).  The military police were called and disarmed him.  He was admitted to the base hospital for observation.

9.  On 7 January 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for the following violations.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to sergeant (SGT)/E-5.
* behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer
* willfully disobeying a lawful command from his commander
* willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer
* wrongfully communicating a threat to hurt his company commander and 1SG

10.  On 11 January 1991, he appealed his punishment.  On the same date, a military attorney determined his NJP proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation and that the punishment imposed was not unjust or disproportionate to the offense committed.

11.  On 29 January 1991, the appellate authority, Major General (MG) WGP, Commanding General, Support Command, U.S. Army Central Command, suspended the applicant's reduction for 90 days.

12.  On 31 January 1991, the applicant willfully disobeyed a lawful command from a commissioned officer.  On 3 February 1991, MG WGP vacated the suspended reduction.  The applicant declined the opportunity to rebut the vacation.  According to the 27 January 1992 Department of the Army Inspector General letter, MG WGP, the appellate authority, offered the applicant the opportunity to work directly for him, but the applicant declined.

13.  On 1 February 1991, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  The DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) indicates the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and was mentally responsible.  It also indicates he met the criteria for a passive-aggressive type personality disorder.

14.  On 3 February 1991, Colonel JLK, the group commander, notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  The commander recommended a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

15.  On 3 February 1991, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him.  He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him.  He waived a personal appearance before an administrative separation board and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

16.  He further acknowledged he understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued to him.  He also acknowledged he understood that as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, he could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws.

17.  On 3 February 1991, MG WGP, the separation authority, approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 with a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade as required by regulation.

18.  On 8 February 1991, the applicant executed a Medical Examination for Separation Statement of Option regarding his separation physical.  He opted not to undergo a separation medical examination.  He acknowledged he understood he was not required to undergo a medical examination for separation from active duty; however, he had the option to elect one.  If he elected not to undergo a physical examination, he understood that his medical records would be reviewed by a physician at the appropriate medical treatment facility (MTF) and if the review indicated that an examination should be accomplished, he would be scheduled for an examination based on that review.  The Statement of Option contains two hand-written entries as follows:

* Soldier sent back from Saudi Arabia for a chapter 14 discharge without health and dental records
* records review from mobilization station, Fort Benjamin Harrison, and 910219 [19 February 1991]

19.  He was discharged on 12 February 1991.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct – commission of a serious offense – with an under other than honorable conditions character of service.  He completed 12 years, 8 months, and 5 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

20.  On 27 January 1992, a letter addressed to the applicant from the Department of the Army Office of the Inspector General stated, "We learned that during the proceedings to vacate your suspended reduction and pending administrative separation action Lieutenant General (LTG) WGP [MG WGP had since been promoted] offered you the opportunity to keep your rank and work directly for him.  Our inquiry revealed that you declined his offer and elected to take the reduction.  Shortly after that, you voluntarily elected to waive your right to an administrative separation board.  We have inquired into your allegations and issues as thoroughly as possible….We learned that the chain of command was handicapped in Saudi Arabia because the unit was located at three different camps spread over several hundred miles.  General WGP gave you the opportunity to keep your rank and stay in the Army; however, you declined the offer.  In summary, we have determined that you received due process with respect to your Article 15 and administrative separation.  The actions taken against you were the result of your own misconduct and not because of racial discrimination."

21.  On 1 June 1992, the applicant appeared before the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  After reviewing the evidence and hearing his testimony, the ADRB unanimously voted that his discharge was both proper and equitable.  Accordingly, the ADRB denied his petition for a re-characterization of service.

22.  On 21 April 1993, the ABCMR denied his petition to set aside the NJP imposed on 11 January 1990 and restoration of his rank/grade of SSG/E-6 in Docket Number AC92-10964.

23.  On 15 September 1993, the ABCMR denied his request for reconsideration of his original request to set aside the NJP and restore his rank/grade to SSG/
E-6 in Docket Number AC92-10964A.

24.  On 30 June 1997, an OCLL official stated in a letter addressed to Congresswoman EBJ regarding the applicant's discharge that the applicant signed a statement indicating he had consulted with legal counsel and was advised of his rights.  He was discharged on 12 February 1991.  Prior to that, he had signed a medical waiver.  However, PERSCOM officials advised that a Soldier cannot waive the required medical discharge if he/she is pending a discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.  In light of this statement, the OCLL recommended the applicant readdress the issue with the ABCMR.

25.  On 22 June 2001, the ABCMR administratively letter closed his second request for reconsideration in Docket Number AR2001052432.

26.  On 13 July 2004 in response to an appeal by Congressman TAC on behalf of the applicant, the ABCMR considered but denied the applicant's petition that his 1991 discharge for misconduct be voided and that he be reinstated with full back pay plus interest and the rank he would have attained had he not been wrongfully separated and that he receive full retirement with benefits in Docket Number AR2003096197.

27.  On 28 July 2009 in a letter addressed to Congresswoman MF the DASA (RB) chronicled the actions prior, during, and after the applicant's discharge, including his personal hearing before the ADRB and multiple petitions to the ABCMR.  The DASA (RB) concluded that after reviewing all the facts and evidence, she is convinced the applicant received due process in the elimination proceedings and found the decisions rendered by the ADRB and the ABCMR were both appropriate and fair.

28.  On 20 October 2009 in a letter addressed to Congressman TAC, the Chief, Administrative Law Division, OTJAG, answered questions raised by the Congressman.

	a.  In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1145, members of the Armed Forces scheduled to be separated from active duty are required to undergo a physical examination immediately before separation.  Additionally, paragraph 1-32 of Army Regulation 40-501 states that mental status evaluations and medical examinations are required for Soldiers being processed for separation under chapter 14.

	b.  A Soldier will be referred to an MEB if a medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for separation under chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention under chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501.  In this case, administrative separation proceedings under chapter 14 continue, but final action will not be taken by the separation authority pending the results of the MEB.  If the MEB findings indicate that referral to a physical evaluation board (PEB) is warranted, then copies of the MEB's findings are referred to the Soldier's chain of command.  The Soldier's General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) may direct the Soldier to be processed through the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) when action under the UCMJ has not been initiated.  The Soldier's medical condition must be either the direct or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct or other circumstances warranting disability processing instead of further processing under chapter 14.

	c.  In accordance with paragraph 2-4(b)(8) of Army Regulation 635-200, a Soldier has the right to withdraw a waiver of an administrative separation board and request a board any time before the date the separation authority orders, directs, or approves the separation.  The recourse available to a Soldier denied this right to a hearing following a timely request to withdraw an earlier waiver depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.  A Soldier in this position should consider consulting with counsel.

29.  On 5 January 2010 in a letter addressed through OCLL, Congressman TAC raised the issues stated in the "Applicant's Request, Statement, and Evidence" above; however, the Congressman's request was considered a request for reconsideration.  Since it was not received within 1 year of the original decision, the request was administratively closed.

30.  Army Regulation 635-200 [current version effective 6 July 2005 and the October 1990 version in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge] sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed and an unfit medical condition is not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the Soldier's misconduct.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 

31.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-15, of the version in effect in 1991 stated that when the immediate commander determines that separation for acts or patterns of misconduct is in the best interest of the Service, he or she will report the fact to the separation authority through the intermediate commander.  The intermediate commander may take one of several actions, to include disapproving the recommendation and directing reassignment of the Soldier to another organization or directing disposition by other means.

32.  Paragraph 1-32 of the current version of Army Regulation 635-200 states that commanders will ensure that Soldiers initiated for separation under this regulation who are required to obtain a physical examination per Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1145, obtain such.  Physical examinations and mental health evaluations will comply with Army Regulation 40-501 and other policy guidance issued by the Surgeon General and U.S. Army Medical Command.  In addition to medical examinations, mental status evaluations conducted by a psychologist or master-level licensed clinical social worker are required for Soldiers being processed for separation under chapter 14, section III.

33. Paragraph 1-33 of the current version of Army Regulation 635-200 states that except in separation actions under chapter 10 and as provided for in paragraph 1-33b, disposition through medical channels takes precedence over administrative separation processing.

	a.  When the MTF commander or attending medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for administrative separation under chapter 14 does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention in accordance with chapter 3of Army Regulation 40-501, he/she will refer the Soldier to an MEB in accordance with Army Regulation 40-400 (Patient Administration).  The administrative separation proceedings will continue, but final action by the separation authority will not be taken, pending the results of MEB.  If the MEB findings indicate that referral of the case to a PEB is warranted for disability processing under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), the MTF commander will furnish copies of the approved MEB proceedings to the Soldier's GCMCA and unit commander.  The GCMCA may direct, in writing, that the Soldier be processed through the PDES when action under the UCMJ has not been initiated and one of the following has been determined:

* the Soldier's medical condition is the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination
* other circumstances of the individual case warrant disability processing instead of further processing for administrative separation

	b.  The authority of the GCMCA to determine whether a case is to be processed through medical disability channels or under administrative separation provisions will not be delegated.  The GCMCA's signed decision to process a Soldier through the PDES will be transmitted to the MTF commander as authority for referral of the case to a PEB.  Copies of the GCMCA's decision will be furnished to the unit commander and included in the administrative separation proceedings.

	c.  The unit commander will suspend processing of the administrative separation action pending the PEB.  If the Soldier is found physically fit, the administrative separation action will be resumed.  If the Soldier is found physically unfit, the administrative separation action will be abated.  Disability processing is inappropriate if the conditions in paragraphs 1-33b(1)a and b of this regulation do not apply, if UCMJ action has been initiated, or if the Soldier has been medically diagnosed as drug dependent.

34.  Paragraph 1-34a of Army Regulation 635-200 in effect in 1991 provided that medical examinations were "required for Soldiers being separated per paragraph 5-3 of chapter 5, chapter 8, chapter 9, chapter 12, chapter 13, section III of chapter 14, chapter 15, and certain other Soldiers as required by Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 8-23 and table 8-3.  Medical examinations under other provisions of this regulation are not required but may be requested by members in writing."

35.  Paragraph 1-35b of Army Regulation 635-200 in effect in 1991 stated, "When the examining medical officer decides that a Soldier being considered for separation for misconduct (chapter 14) does not meet the retention medical standards, he or she will refer the Soldier to a medical board….The MTF commander will furnish a copy of the approved board proceedings to the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier concerned.  A copy will also be furnished to the unit commander.  The commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction will direct the Soldier to be processed through disability channels per Army Regulation 635-40 when it is determined that the disability is the cause or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct or circumstances warrant disability processing instead of administrative processing."

36.  Public Law 101-510, dated 5 November 1990, established the Transitional Health Benefit, codified in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1145.  As originally enacted, the statute did not require a medical examination for Soldiers being involuntarily separated from the Army.  Public Law 108-375, dated 28 October 2004, amended Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1145, to require a medical examination of a Soldier immediately before an involuntary separation.

37.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The unfitness must be of such a degree that a Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty.

	a.  Paragraph 3-1 states that the mere presence of 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 member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating.  The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated.

	b.  Paragraph 4-3 states an enlisted member may not be referred for physical disability processing when action has been started that may result in an administrative separation with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  If the case comes within these limitations, the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier may abate the administrative separation.  A case file could be referred to a PEB if the GCMCA finds the disability is the cause or a substantial contributing cause of the misconduct that might result in a discharge under other than honorable conditions or other circumstances warrant disability processing instead of alternate administrative separation.

38.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement.  Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the PEB rates all disabilities using the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities.

	a.  Paragraph 3-3b states Soldiers with conditions listed in this chapter who do not meet the required medical standards will be evaluated by an MEB as defined in Army Regulation 40-400 and will be referred to a PEB as defined in Army Regulation 635-40 with the following caveats:  Soldiers pending separation in accordance with provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 authorizing separation under other than honorable conditions who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to an MEB.  In the case of enlisted Soldiers, the physical disability processing and the administrative separation processing will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 and Army Regulation 635-40.

	b.  Paragraph 3-3c states physicians who identify Soldiers with medical conditions listed in this chapter should initiate an MEB at the time of identification.  Physicians should not defer initiating the MEB until the Soldier is being processed for non-disability retirement.  Many of the conditions listed in this chapter fall below retention standards only if the condition has precluded or prevented successful performance of duty.  In those cases when it is clear the condition is long standing and has not prevented the Soldier from reaching retirement, then the Soldier meets the standard and an MEB is not required.

	c.  Paragraph 3-35 states a history of or current manifestations of personality disorders, disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified, and/or other disorders render an individual administratively unfit.  These conditions render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical illness or medical disability.  These conditions will be dealt with through administrative channels, including Army Regulation 635-200.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant, a noncommissioned officer and leader of Soldiers, committed a serious offense in that he disobeyed a lawful command and communicating a threat.  His chain of command initiated separation action against him under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct.  He consulted with counsel and he was advised of his rights.  He waived his right to appear before an administrative separation board.  The separation authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The evidence of record shows he underwent a mental status evaluation on 1 February 1991.  The military psychiatrist indicated the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and was mentally responsible.  It also indicated he met the criteria for a passive-aggressive type personality disorder.  However, no where did the military psychiatrist indicate the applicant was medically unfit.  In fact, the psychiatrist found that the applicant met retention standards under Army Regulation 40-501.

3.  There is no evidence in his records that shows he was physically unfit at the time of his discharge.  A Soldier is considered unfit when the evidence establishes that the Soldier is unable to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  The available evidence shows he was fully able to perform the duties of his grade and fully qualified for separation.

4.  The applicant redirects his focus on the fact that he was required by regulation to undergo a physical examination and in doing so, he suggests, in effect, the Army did not allow him to do so.  His argument is faulty and misleading because prior to his discharge he was offered the option to undergo a medical examination and he chose in writing not to do so.

5.  Even if he had elected to undergo a separation physical, there is no evidence in his records that shows he would have been found physically unfit at the time of his discharge.  On the contrary, his multiple reenlistments, completion of various training courses, and evaluation reports clearly show he was fully qualified for retention.  If he is referring to the adjustment disorder mentioned in his mental evaluation on 7 February 1991, such disorders render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical illness or medical disability.  Overall, the psychiatrist found he met medical retention standards under Army Regulation 40-501.  Conditions of this nature are dealt with through administrative channels, including Army Regulation 635-200.

6.  The mere presence of 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 his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.

7.  The reason for his separation (misconduct) was not related to any medical condition he had been diagnosed with and there were no other compelling reasons for an MTF or the GCMCA to refer him for disability processing.  The evidence of record clearly shows the Army followed all regulatory guidance in separating the applicant.  But even if the GCMCA failed to make a determination regarding medical processing, this error would have been harmless because:

* the nature of the applicant's misconduct (disobeying a lawful command) had no relation to any medical condition he might have had
* he presented no compelling evidence that other circumstances warranted disability processing over administrative separation
* nothing in his records supported a claim for an unfitting medical condition at that time

8.  Hence, to the degree the Army failed to comply with Army Regulation 
635-200, the error was harmless.  The basis for the applicant's discharge – misconduct – was supported by the evidence.  Nothing in the record suggests a different outcome would have occurred if a medical examination had been performed.  In view of the circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to grant the requested relief.

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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decisions of the ABCMR set forth in Docket 

Number AC92-10964, dated 21 April 1993; Docket Number AC92-10964A, dated 15 September 1993; and Docket Number AR2003096197, dated 13 July 2004



      __________XXX_______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006349



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006349



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1