IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 November 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110006839 


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, through his Member of Congress, reconsideration of his earlier request for/to:

* change his reentry (RE) code to a more favorable code
* set aside his 2 June 1992 discharge from the Regular Army
* constructive reinstatement of service
* a voluntary retirement
* back pay and allowances due as a result of the relief outlined above
* issue a new DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflecting voluntary retirement

2.  The applicant states:

* his mother is 87 years old and is not in good health
* his military career was ruined because his chain of command allowed his supervisor to ruin it
* his supervisor was a member of an extremist organization and he made several racial comments
* he complained to his commanding officer (CO) who was also the Equal Opportunity (EO) officer of the hostile environment but nothing was done
* his CO joined hands with the extremist supervisor to cover up the misconduct
* his CO and other members of his chain of command were ultimately relieved and supervisor was allowed to retire; but the damage had already been done 
* his chain of command illegally conspired against him because of his race and these actions stained him and scarred him even after he was discharged
* he believes those responsible for ruining his career should be charged and subjected to a general court-martial 

3.  The applicant provides statements through his counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's earlier request based on the applicant's statements above.

2.  Counsel states the applicant's letters of reprimand and Enlisted Evaluation Report (EER) are suspect.  In addition, an obsolete regulation, Army Regulation (AR) 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) prevented the applicant from fairly appealing his letter of reprimand.  Additionally, the applicant's EO officer did not perform her duties to protect the applicant by relieving sergeant first class (SFC) GVK, the applicant's supervisor, who mistreated him.  Instead, the EO officer perpetuated the racist and unfair treatment with an adverse EER and letter of reprimand.  Counsel chronicles the applicant's military history and describes the events that ultimately led to the applicant's discharge.  Counsel keys on the following issues:

* The applicant was unjustly barred under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP)
* The QMP was based on an improper letter of reprimand and an improper EER; both of which were the result of racial prejudice and bias by the applicant's supervisor, a member of an extremist organization
* The EO officer failed to act and protect the applicant due to the racial prejudice displayed by his supervisor
* The supervisor retaliated against the applicant with a negative evaluation after learning of the applicant's EO complaint

3.  Counsel provides:

* The applicant's previous application with allied documents
* Previous Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings
* DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ) and allied documents
* Letter of Reprimand and allied documents
* Memorandum, dated July 1991, requesting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct an investigation
* Letters from the Department of the Army Office of the Inspector General (DAIG)
* Commander's Inquiry and allied documents
* Qualitative Management Program notification, appeal, and allied documents
* Letters regarding indebtedness
* DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet)
* Special Court-Martial Order Number 2, dated 14 June 1989
* Multiple Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Reports and an appeal
* Unit command inspection program results
* Multiple letters of support/character reference letters
* 1992 AR 623-205 (NCO Reporting System)
* Extract of a related law suit (Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1993)

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 AR20090009327, on 13 April 2010.

2.  The applicant's counsel provided a new argument as well as multiple related documents that were not previously considered.  Therefore, they are considered new evidence and as such warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 August 1982 and he held military occupational specialty 75B (Personnel Administration Specialist).  He served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments including Germany from 29 October 1984 to 22 December 1987.  He was promoted to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 on 6 July 1985.

4.  On 11 March 1987, while holding the rank of SGT, he was reprimanded for driving a vehicle while intoxicated on 23 August 1986.  The letter of reprimand stated that he had brought discredit upon himself and the U.S. Army.  He acknowledged receipt of the letter of reprimand but failed to submit a response or rebuttal.  The Assistant Division Commander, 8th Infantry Division, ordered the letter filed in his official military personnel file (OMPF).

5.  In January 1988, after completing his overseas tour, he was reassigned to the U.S. Army Recruiting Battalion, Sacramento, CA, a subordinate unit of the 
6th Recruiting Brigade, Presidio of San Francisco, CA, which reported to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC), Fort Sheridan, IL.

6.  On 1 March 1989, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for one specification of being disrespectful in language and deportment towards SFC GVK, a superior NCO, on 21 October 1988.

7.  During the month of April 1989, he received a change of rater NCOER that covered the period September 1988 through April 1989.  The original NCOER is not available for review with this case.  The applicant appealed this NCOER at a later date (9 January 1992) and he was granted partial relief.  The remainder of this NCOER shows his senior rater rated his overall performance as a "4" (successful) and his overall potential for promotion or service in positions of greater responsibility also as a "4" (fair).  He further commented:

* Has problems dealing with authority and obeying superiors
* Immature and unprofessional in word and deed
* Takes a very defensive approach to constructive criticism and counseling
* Capable of overcoming problems if he matures and learns what a professional NCO is

8.  On 12 April 1989, the applicant's battalion commander notified the applicant that he was considering whether he should be punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for treating with contempt or being disrespectful in language or deportment towards a warrant, NCO, or petty officer, on 12 April 1989. 

9.  The disposition of this Article 15 is unclear because there is no indication the applicant demanded/not demanded trial by a court-martial in lieu of this Article 15 or whether the imposing officer administered it or if the applicant accepted it. 

10.  On 14 April 1989, a special court-martial found the applicant not guilty of the charge and specification of being disrespectful towards an NCO on 21 October 1988.  

11.  On 24 April 1989, the applicant was reprimanded for being "extremely disrespectful in language and attitude" toward his immediate supervisor, sergeant first class (SFC) GVK.  The letter of reprimand stated that during a work-related conversation with SFC GVK, he walked out of the office and he had to be called back and when counseled concerning this matter, he stated "I am going to break a lot of things around here; I am going to break you" or words to that effect. 

12.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter of reprimand and indicated he understood this unfavorable information would not be filed in his OMPF without his knowledge and/or an opportunity to make a written statement.  He further submitted a statement or rebuttal wherein he described the events that occurred on 12 April 1989.  He stated that he did not believe his CO, battalion sergeant major, or battalion commander would do anything to help him and that he did not trust any of them.  He further requested USAREC conduct an investigation of many inconsistencies that were going on at the Sacramento Recruiting Battalion.  

13.  On 15 May 1989, the applicant's battalion commander recommended the letter of reprimand be filed in the applicant's OMPF.

14.  On 24 May 1989, the applicant's brigade commander reviewed the reprimand as well as the applicant's rebuttal and directed that the letter be filed in the applicant's OMPF.

15.  In or around May 1989 (his official orders state the effective date as 27 December 1989), he was assigned or attached to the Sacramento Army Depot, U.S. Army Materiel Command, Sacramento, CA.  He remained with this unit until he was discharged in May 1992.

16.  On 15 March 1990, the Commander, USAG, Presidio San Francisco, CA, reviewed the 24 April 1989 letter of reprimand and the recommendation of the chain of command and further ordered it be filed in the applicant's OMPF.

17.  On 29 June 1990, the applicant requested charges be preferred against his supervisor, SFC GVK, for various misconduct.  However, on 29 June 1990, the battalion commander dismissed the charges pending completion of an investigation.

18.  On 27 July 1990, a commander's inquiry/investigation was conducted to examine whether SFC GVK:

* told sexual jokes (he claimed the allegation was false)
* wrongfully attempted to influence the testimony of another Soldier
* made racially offensive comments in the performance of official duties
* deliberately misled the applicant concerning his eligibility for variable housing allowance (VHA) payments

19.  The investigating officer (IO) could not substantiate the allegation of racial jokes, or the wrongful attempt to influence another Soldier, or misleading the applicant with regard to VHA payments; however, he substantiated the allegation that SFC GVK made racially offensive comments.  He recommended SFC GVK be punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ.

20.  On 18 April 1991, the applicant requested the Garrison Commander reverse his decision to file the letter of reprimand in his OMPF and remove it.  He submitted several statements and documents alleging bias, untruthfulness, and lack of integrity by SFC GVK.

21.  On 22 May 1991, the Garrison Commander, Presidio of San Francisco, CA, reviewed the applicant's request and determined that he failed to provide evidence that the letter of reprimand was untrue or unjust.  Accordingly, the applicant's request was denied.

22.  On 12 July 1991, the applicant's senior commander at the Sacramento Army Depot petitioned the Garrison Commander on behalf of the applicant and asked him to reconsider the decision to deny the request to have the letter removed from the applicant's OMPF.  The senior commander stated that he believed the charges in the letter of reprimand were probably incorrect or unfair and that SFC GVK's conduct was tainted by racially-offensive comments.

23.  On 30 July 1991, in a letter written to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the applicant stated that he had been unduly punished, harassed, and slandered.  He also stated that the DAIG as well as the USAREC IG failed him and that the reason for their ineffectiveness and lack of concern was their insensitiveness to the harassment, racial name-calling, and cruelty that was dealt to him.  He also alleged that when his defense attorney went through the evidence and prepared charges against SFC GVK, the attorney indicated there was evidence to charge the battalion executive officer, battalion commander, adjutant, and the brigade commander.  After the charges were filed, USAREC was upset with the defense attorney and exerted some "heat" on him.  A subsequent investigation by another officer yielded results that were far different from those conducted by the Office of the IG.  

24.  On 1 August 1991, the Garrison Commander, Presidio San Francisco, CA, reviewed the applicant's senior commander's petition and stated that he found it inappropriate to second-guess what had already been investigated and acted upon years ago.  He found nothing to convince him to change his decision.  Accordingly, he denied the applicant's request.

25.  A letter, from the DAIG, dated 13 September 1991, notified the applicant that his case had been reviewed and it was determined that no further action was required concerning his allegations of racial discrimination.  The Commanding General (CG), USAREC reviewed the commander's inquiry and took the action that he deemed appropriate for all individuals involved, including the chain of command. 

26.  On 18 October 1991, the applicant petitioned the CG, Sixth U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco, CA, to have the letter of reprimand removed from his OMPF.  The applicant described the events and alleged personal animosity, racial comments and prejudice, confrontation with an NCO with limited integrity, and the Garrison Commander's reluctance to do the right thing.

27.  A memorandum from the Commander, U.S. Army Enlisted Records Center (USAEREC), dated 1 November 1991, notified the applicant that during a review of his file, a board determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the QMP.  The board had considered his record of service including his performance and future potential for retention in the Army.  He was provided a sealed envelope that contained an updated copy of his OMPF with a list of documents indicating areas of deficiency or weakness that contributed most to the QMP board's decision to bar him.  The list contained the NCOER for the period September 1988 through April 1989 and letters of reprimand, dated 11 March 1987 and 24 April 1989.

28.  On 18 November 1991, he acknowledged notification of the DA bar to reenlistment under the QMP program and elected to submit an appeal.  

29.  On 2 December 1991, the CG, Sixth U.S. Army, Presidio of San Francisco, CA returned the applicant's appeal without action and stated that there was no procedure in place at the time to appeal the Garrison Commander's decision and that it would not be proper to direct him to change it.  Additionally, there was no independent basis to support the applicant's position to have it removed.  

30.  On 9 January 1992, in a letter of support of the applicant's appeal, his senior commander stated that the applicant had performed well and earned the respect of his peers and superiors.  He also indicated that he believed the applicant may have been a victim of racial and personal discrimination while assigned to the recruiting battalion.  He further asked if the allegations were found credible, the applicant should be judged without the letter of reprimand or the negative EER. 

31.  On 2 March 1992, by endorsement, the Commander, USAEREC, Fort Benjamin Harrison, notified the applicant that his appeal was reviewed by a recent DA Standby Advisory Board (STAB).  His appeal was denied and he would remain barred.  The STAB judged the applicant's past performance and estimated potential were not in keeping with the standards expected of the NCO Corps.  He was ordered to be honorably discharged no later than 31 May 1992 with an RE code of "4" and a separation code of "JCC."  
32.  On 28 May 1992, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of reduction in authorized strength, QMP.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows that based on the authority and reason for his separation, he was assigned a separation program designator code of JCC and an RE code of 4.  It also shows he completed 9 years, 9 months, and 19 days of creditable active service.

33.  The applicant submitted the case of Dodson v. United States, 988 F.2d 1199 (Federal Circular 1993) to substantiate his claim.  The applicant contends Dodson requires that this Board take corrective action in his case because the documents on which the Promotion Selection Board (PSB) and STAB (QMP appeal body) selected him for QMP are a product of racial discrimination and should be eliminated from his record.  A review of the Dodson case reveals factual dissimilarities between Dodson and the applicant’s case.   

34.  In Dodson the individual was denied reenlistment based on a QMP determination.  Dodson scored 124 points out of a maximum of 125 on the final EER (EER 124) he received prior to the PSB.  This EER closed out in April1982. After receiving the EER, Dodson learned that a "substitute rater mistakenly placed an EER 110" in his OMPF.  Dodson’s file, including the incorrect EER was forwarded to the PSB.  Prior to the PSB making a determination, a personnel officer found the incorrect EER 110 and attempted to get it replaced with the correct EER 124.  The personnel officer was informed that Dodson would have to appeal the EER to the EER Appeal Board.  Dodson appealed the EER to the Appeal Board.   

	a.  While Dodson’s EER Appeal was pending, on 29 March 1983 the PSB barred Dodson from reenlisting (QMP).  The board identified the basis as eight EERs, including the erroneous EER, and an Article 15 from 1966.  The Court addressed the lack of coordination between the EER Appeal Board and the PSB. The PSB rendered its decision while the EER was under appeal.  In September 1983, after the decision barring Dodson's reenlistment, the EER Appeal Board ruled in Dodson’s favor invalidating the EER 110 and deleting it from Dodson’s OMPF.  The Appeal Board did not order that the EER 124 be placed in his OMPF.

	b.  Dodson began his appeals of the QMP.  Dodson appealed to the U.S. Army Military Personnel Center (MILPERCEN) but was told he had to appeal through his chain of command.  When he attempted to appeal through his chain, his commander gave him a direct order to wait until he returned from Korea.  He subsequently submitted an "individual" appeal pursuant to the regulation.  Dodson was subsequently transferred to Fort Lewis, WA.  On 9 November 1984, the Retirement Appeals Board disapproved Dodson’s individual appeal based on a long history of marginal performance based on below average EERs.  

	c.  Dodson attempted to obtain a "commander" appeal at Fort Lewis.  His commander told him he did not know him and that he should appeal through the commander at his previous assignment.  Dodson returned to Hawaii at his own expense and his former commander submitted a commander appeal.  The Army advised Dodson that the appeal must go through the command where he was stationed at the time of his appeal.  He returned to Fort Lewis and persuaded his commander to submit a command appeal.  The appeals were never acted upon. Dodson was discharged.  When he attempted to appeal again, his appeals were rejected because he had been discharged.

	d.  Dodson applied to the ABCMR to void his discharge and retroactively restore him to active duty.  The ABCMR denied his application.  The ABCMR relied on advisory opinions from MILPERCEN and the Office of The Judge Advocate General.  The ABCMR concluded that his rights were not violated and that due to his record of poor performance he would have been barred even if EER 124 had been seen by the PSB and STAB.  

	e.  Dodson filed a petition in Federal Court.  The Court stated that the Army is required to follow its regulations.  If the Board finds an error or injustice the Board must grant thorough fitting relief.  The Court can correct "plain legal error."  Plain legal error includes the military’s "violation of statute, or regulation, or published mandatory procedure, or unauthorized acts."  In a footnote the Court stated "The boards may also be reviewed for failure to correct an alleged injustice where factual, rather than legal error has been committed by the military, and the error is so shocking to the conscience that the Boards' failure to correct it rises to the level of legal error."   

	f.  In Dodson the Court determined that the Army entirely bypassed the requirements of the QMP in barring Dodson.  The EER 110 was not simply an "unfair" rating, it was a fiction as was determined by the EER Appeal Board when it ruled in Dodson’s favor and removed the EER 110.  The erroneous EER rendered the PSB’s action void.  The ABCMR addressed only the irrelevant question whether the EER 124 would have made a difference over the EER 110. The Court stated that a Soldier does not have to prove that if his records had been correct, the adverse action would not have occurred.  The test is not "but for."  The Court stated that the ABCMR reviews selection decisions for error it does not make selection decisions on a de novo basis.  The ABCMR’s mere consideration of a defective personnel decision does not cure the defect.  The Court also determined that the Army violated regulations by transferring and discharging Dodson while his appeals were pending.  The Court stated that the individual's career was ruined through no fault of his own, but because of bureaucratic bungling.  

35.  In recent cases, Courts have stated that the standard of review is whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law. 

36.  The QMP was implemented and managed under the supervision of the Commander, USAEREC.  DA Centralized Selection Boards conduct screening and/or selection of Soldiers for this program as an additional mission when conducting Centralized Promotion Selection Boards.  Criteria includes but is not limited to moral, professional, or ethical conduct incompatible with that expected of an NCO; the lack of potential to perform duties; inefficiency or substandard performance; a trend of disciplinary problems; or the inability to meet physical fitness standards or failure to comply with requirements of the Army body composition program.  The USAEREC Commander defines the objective of the QMP as being to enhance the quality of the career enlisted force by selectively retaining the best qualified Soldiers and denying further service to non-progressive or non-productive Soldiers.  It is used to eliminate Soldiers who do not meet performance conduct and attitude standards and do not have the potential for advancement.

37.  AR 601-280 (Army Retention Program) prescribes the criteria for the Army Retention Program. 

	a.  Paragraph 10-5 in effect at the time provided for screening procedures and stated that appropriate Department of the Army Selection Boards would review the performance portion of the official military personnel file, the DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record (PQR) Part – I) and DA Form 2-1 (PQR Part – II), and other authorized documents.  From these documents, the board will evaluate past performance and estimate the potential of each Soldier to determine if continued service is warranted.

	b.  Paragraph 10-8 in effect at the time provided that a Soldier could appeal the bar to reenlistment imposed under the QMP based on improved performance and/or material error in the Soldier's record when reviewed by the selection board.  The appeal must have been submitted within 45 days of completion of the statement of option and would include substantive comments on the Soldier's performance and potential by each member of the chain of command. 

	c.  Paragraph 10-10 provided that the appeal was considered by the QMP Appeals Board normally conducted in conjunction with centralized enlisted selection boards.  The QMP Appeals Board would consider the Soldier's potential for future service and promotion, review the Soldier's complete record "de novo," and notify the Soldier's commander (lieutenant colonel or above) of the results of the appeal. 

38.  AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.  Chapter 3 prescribes basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes.  

* An RE-1 applies to persons who completed an initial term of active service who were fully qualified for enlistment when separated
* An RE-3 applies to persons who were not qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification was waivable
* An RE-4 applies to Soldiers separated from their last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification

39.  AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty.  At the time of the applicant's separation, the "JCC" SPD was used in the cases of separation by reason of reduction in authorized strength-Qualitative Management Program.

40.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table, dated 2 October 1989, provides instructions for determining the RE code for Active Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers.  This cross reference table shows the SPD code and the corresponding RE code.  It states that a bar to reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program has a corresponding RE code of "4."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The issues the applicant raised and/or his counsel as well as the arguments and evidence submitted were carefully considered; however, the evidence remains insufficient to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The applicant’s case is essentially an attempt to undermine the documents which the PSB relied on to determine he was barred from reenlistment.  He alleges that they were the product of illegal discrimination and therefore should not be considered.  Absent these documents, he would have been retained.  

3.  His case, however, is different than Dodson's.  In Dodson the Court determined that the PSB did not follow the appropriate regulation because an erroneous EER was included in the record before the PSB.  The Court pointed 

out that the EER was not just unfair; it was in fact a fiction.  The Court opined that the ABCMR could not substitute its judgment for the PSB but had to remand the corrected record to the PSB.  Dodson identified the deficiency in his record prior to the PSB and attempted to correct the error.   

4.  When the PSB reviewed his case it reviewed the record as it existed.  It was not until after he received the QMP decision that he appealed the EERs and appealed the QMP decision to the STAB.  He appears to have obtained relief from the EER appeal.  The STAB did not view the corrected EERs.  The applicant did not provide an explanation as to why he did not appeal the EERs prior to the PSB.  Unlike Dodson who attempted to correct his record and remove a "fiction" from it prior to the PSB, the applicant did not attempt to correct his record prior to the PSB.  Additionally, while he attacks the decisions of the individuals who rated him, his ratings were the product of military judgment and not a pure "fiction." 

5.  The applicant and his counsel attempted to blame the applicant's misconduct and subsequent bar to reenlistment and discharge on racial prejudice.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's supervisor was racially prejudiced and biased and was ultimately removed from his position for these reasons.  However, while the supervisor's behavior was deplorable, it does not appear it was the sole or primary reason for the duty performance that led to his QMP selection and separation.

6.  When the applicant received his first letter of reprimand for driving while intoxicated, he did not work for the prejudiced supervisor.  Furthermore, when the applicant received his second letter of reprimand, he was afforded the opportunity to appeal and he did so on multiple occasions.  His multiple appeals were denied.  He placed the blame on the company commander, battalion commander, battalion adjutant, brigade commander, and even the IG.  Nowhere does it show he accepted responsibility for his actions.  

7.  Additionally, despite his partially successful appeal of one of his evaluations, that same evaluation revealed he had problems dealing with authority and obeying superiors, he was immature and unprofessional in word and deed, he took a very defensive approach to constructive criticism and counseling, and he was capable of overcoming problems if he matured and learned to become a professional NCO.


8.  The QMP selection was based on an evaluation of his entire record of service by the QMP selection board.  Even absent the April 1989 letter of reprimand, there was other evidence of the applicant's substandard performance.

9.  The applicant also presumes that except for or despite the QMP, he would have completed successive reenlistments and ultimately completed enough service to retire.  His presumption is speculative at best and is not supported by the evidence of record.  His misconduct included a reprimand for DWI, a poor evaluation report, a reprimand for disrespect, and other misconduct.

10.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's records were considered under the QMP and he was not selected for continued service.  He received a bar to reenlistment as a result of this non-continuation.  Upon his discharge, he was assigned an RE code of 4.  The RE code of 4 was the appropriate code based on the guidance provided in applicable regulations for Soldiers separating under the QMP.  Furthermore, in accordance with applicable regulations in effect at the time of his discharge, the RE code entered on his DD Form 214 was consistent with the reason and authority for his discharge.

11.  The applicant was properly afforded all appellate reviews associated with the QMP and other actions and given there were documents on file not related to the rater/supervisor in question that supported his QMP selection, it would not be appropriate to grant the requested relief in this case.  Therefore, he is not entitled to 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 that the overall merits of this case 

are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090009327, dated 13 April 2010.



      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20110006839



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110006839



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1