IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  7 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007741


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.  This case comes before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on a remand from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Washington, DC.  The Court directs the ABCMR to:

* determine the circumstances of the termination of the plaintiff's (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") medical disability evaluation
* determine whether she was properly separated from active duty at the end of her 4-year commitment

2.  Contained within the U.S. Government's (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") Unopposed Motion for a Remand to the ABCMR, filed on 29 March 2012, is background information and a discussion related to the applicant's claim against the Army.

	a.  In February 2005, she contends she injured her back when a dog knocked her down, resulting in severe low back pain.

	b.  On 9 November 2005, she was evaluated as suffering from chronic low back pain, which initially was deemed "medically unacceptable" by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The examining official recommended her referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

	c.  A March 2006 MEB proceeding report recommended referral to a PEB.

	d.  On 7 September 2007, she was honorably discharged from the Army upon the expiration of her term of service.  A PEB for injuries she sustained while on active duty was never convened.

	e.  During her 4 years of active service, she served as a Clinical Staff Nurse in the Pediatric Unit at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC), Washington, DC.  Following service on active duty, she began serving in a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) troop program unit (TPU) as the Head Nurse of a Pediatric Unit.  In this role, her duties remained the same as those on active duty.

	f.  The applicant contends she was wrongfully separated from her position as a Regular Army (RA) officer at the end of her 4-year commitment because she requested to continue serving on active duty, and because her medical disability evaluation was incomplete.  In support of her contention that she requested to continue her active service, she submitted an unsigned and undated request to remain in her position at WRAMC.

	g.  Her available official records do not explain why her medical evaluations were stopped in the spring of 2006.  Although the PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO) and her examining physicians have explained that the applicant sought to terminate her PEB processing to remain on active duty, the issue of the "voluntariness" of her separation and the status of her medical processing remain in dispute.

3.  The Court provides:

	a.  TAB 1, the Defendant's Appendix, consisting of the declarations (with supporting attachments) of:

		(1)  Mr. L---- J. G---, WRAMC PEBLO; and

		(2)  Doctor (Dr.) R------ D----, attending physician during the applicant's fit-for-duty evaluation and MEB.

	b.  TABs 2 and 3, Separation Documents and Personnel Records, consisting of numerous personnel documents contained within her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) related to her service as a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) cadet, appointment as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army, service in and eventual separation from the RA.

	c.  TABs 4 and 5, Medical Records (Parts 1 and 2), consisting of numerous medical and dental documents related to treatment she received throughout her period of active service.

	d.  The Defendant separately provided Applicant's "Complaint," "[Applicant's] Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," and "[Applicant's] Appendix to Response to Motion to Dismiss."  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant currently serves as a member of a USAR TPU in the rank/grade of captain (CPT)/O-3.

2.  On 18 May 2003, she was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army, in the rank/grade of second lieutenant (2LT)/O-1, Army Nurse Corps.

3.  On 2 September 2003, she entered active duty in the RA.  She attended and completed the Army Medical Department Officer Basic Course at the Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, TX.  Upon graduation, she reported for duty at WRAMC.

4.  On 7 March 2005, she was promoted to the rank/grade of first lieutenant (1LT)/O-2.

5.  On 21 March 2005, she was issued the first in a series of DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile) that resulted from a back injury she suffered on an unspecified date.  These forms show she was issued a temporary physical profile and she was classified with a "2" in the "L" (Lower Extremities) column of her PULHES.  It is unknown whether or not she ever received a physical profile with a "3" designator, as neither her available record nor the documents submitted in this case contain a DA Form 3349 indicating such. 

6.  Her record contains an automated version of a Standard Form (SF) 513 (Consult Report) and an SF 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) that shows she was examined on 29 April 2005 for a 2-month history of low back pain.  These documents indicate she was prescribed pain management and physical therapy.

7.  On 9 November 2005, she underwent a fit-for-duty evaluation during which her examining physician, Dr. R------ D----, noted she suffered from chronic back pain, she achieved no resolution with conservative therapy, and her magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination was normal.  In discussing her condition with the doctor, the applicant indicated she had daily back pain that waxed and waned.  The pain was sometimes sharp and at times she could hardly sit or walk. On other days she was improved.  She could not run because of the pain or walk 500 feet with pain.  She was unable to do sit-ups.  She could do push-ups, 

but had pain afterwards.  Dr. D---- concluded that given her poor function and chronic daily back pain, he would initiate a permanent profile and refer her case to an MEB.

8.  Her record contains an SF 600, dated 19 April 2006, wherein Dr. D---- states the applicant underwent an MEB in November 2005 and noted the following:

* her Narrative Summary (NARSUM) was forwarded to the PEB office in December 2005
* she noted an improvement in her symptoms in March 2006 following "Prolo Therapy," consisting of injections of dextrose and lidocaine to her lumbar spine
* she reported she could perform her duties without limitation and that most of her days were pain-free or she had only mild pain; she did not miss any duty days over the past 2 months; she still could not run due to back pain, but could walk 2 miles without difficulty and do push-ups; she could not do sit-ups consistently.
* she had residual functional limitations; however, she was not limited with daily activities and she could pass an alternate Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)
* he would issue her a new permanent "2" profile and recommend cancellation of her MEB

9.  On 19 April 2006, she was issued a new DA Form 3349 that changed her physical profile from temporary to permanent.  This form is signed by Dr. D----, identified as the profiling officer, and by Lieutenant Colonel O'M-----, the chief of the General Internal Medicine Service.  This form shows she was issued a "2" in the "L" column of her PULHES.

10.  A printout of the WRAMC MEB Internal Tracking Tool (MEBITT) shows:

	a.  On 17 November 2005, she underwent a physical exam as part of her MEB; however, neither her DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) nor her DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) are available for review.

	b.  On 19 November 2005, her physician transcribed her MEB NARSUM; however, this form is not available for review.

	c.  On 20 November 2005, she was issued a new physical profile on an updated DA Form 3349; however, this form is not available for review.

	d.  On 27 December 2005, the PEBLO received the physician's notification of MEB action, including her physical, permanent profile, and NARSUM.

	e.  On 2 February 2006, her MEB documents were returned to her physician for clarification and/or corrections.

	f.  On 9 February 2006, her NARSUM was reviewed, corrected, and returned to the PEBLO.

	g.  On 15 March 2006, her DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings) was typed.  On 16 March 2006, it was forwarded to her physician for signature, and on or about 20 March 2006, it was signed.  On 22 March 2006, her signed DA Form 3947 was returned to the PEBLO.  This document is not available for review.

	h.  On 23 March 2006, her signed MEB Proceedings were forwarded to the approval authority for signature, and on this same date, were approved.  The MEB recommended the applicant be returned to duty with limitations, including an alternate APFT.

	i.  On 27 March 2006, the PEBLO counseled her on her MEB.  She did not concur with the MEB's recommendation.  They discussed the applicant's options, including appeal procedures and submission of a request to be continued on active duty (COAD) under Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).  On 30 March 2006, she signed the MEB Proceedings, indicating she would appeal the MEB's recommendation.

	j.  On 5 April 2006, her appeal was filed.  This document is not available for review.

	k.  On 19 April 2006, at the request of the MEB approval authority, she was re-examined by her physician and issued a new physical profile and NARSUM.

	l.  On 20 April 2006, her physician issued a new NARSUM recommending the cancellation of her MEB and her return to duty with limitations.  Her DA Form 3947 was re-typed and forwarded for signatures.

	m.  On an unknown date her MEB was terminated.  On 5 July 2006, the fact that it had been terminated was noted in MEBITT.

11.  On 1 November 2006, she was promoted to the rank/grade of CPT/O-3.

12.  On 30 November 2006, she initiated a DD Form 2648 (Preseparation Counseling Checklist for Active Component Service Members) wherein she indicated in item 6 (Anticipated Date of Separation) she would separate voluntarily on 7 September 2007.  She authenticated this document by affixing her signature in item 8a (Service Member Signature).

13.  On 14 December 2006, applicant completed a DA Form 4700 (Reproductive Health History) indicating she was pregnant for the first time.

14.  On 7 September 2007, she was honorably discharged from the RA.  Her
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 3-5 (Rules for Processing Unqualified Resignation), applicable to officers who voluntarily resign their commissions.  

15.  Her record does not contain any documentation that indicates she requested to remain on active duty at the conclusion of her period of required active service, or that she sought to delay or withdraw her voluntary resignation.

16.  Subsequent to her discharge, she was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer of the Army in the rank/grade of CPT/O-3.  According to her DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the rating period 10 September 2007 through 9 September 2008, she was assigned to the 2290th U.S. Army Hospital, Washington, DC, a USAR TPU.

17.  Her OERs covering the period 1 January 2005 through 7 September 2007 show her rating officials consistently rated her "best qualified" and noted her performance by checking the "outstanding performance, must promote" block on her evaluation reports – an indication she was able to perform the duties required of her military grade and specialty.  The two OERs immediately prior to her separation show she was exempt from the APFT and from height and weight standards as is appropriate in the case of a pregnant Soldier.

18.  The court provides two declarations (with supporting attachments) from:

	a.  Mr. L---- J. G---, the applicant's PEBLO at WRAMC, who stated:

* on 27 December 2005, he received the applicant's physical documents, permanent physical profile, and NARSUM
* 
on 15 March 2006, the applicant's case was referred to an informal PEB, as reflected on her DA Form 3947
* on 27 March 2006, the applicant was counseled on the MEB recommendations; specifically, her referral to an informal PEB
* the applicant disagreed with the MEB's recommendations – rather than facing possible separation from the Army for physical disability, she wanted to remain on active duty, the possibility of a COAD was discussed
* on 30 March 2006, the applicant signed her DA Form 3947, indicating she did not agree with the MEB's findings and recommendation
* on 5 April 2006, the applicant appealed the MEB's findings and recommendation
* the applicant's appeal was forwarded to the MEB approval authority, the Deputy Commander of Clinical Services (DCCS) (emphasis added)
* on 17 April 2006, based on his review of her appeal, the DCCS referred her case to her physician for re-evaluation (emphasis added)
* on 19 April 2006, she was re-examined and her physician recommended the cancellation of her MEB and her return to duty with limitations
* on 5 July 2006 a notation was entered in MEBITT reflecting that, consistent with her physician's recommendation and appeal, the applicant's MEB was terminated

	b.  Dr. D----, the applicant's physician during her fit-for-duty evaluation and MEB, who stated:

* on 9 November 2005, he examined the applicant to assess her fitness for duty – as a result of this examination, he issued her a permanent physical profile and referred her to an MEB
* on 19 April 2006, he reexamined her for her MEB – noting her marked improvement in physical limitations, he upgraded her permanent profile and recommended cancellation of her MEB
* in accordance with regulatory guidelines, he forwarded her new physical profile to a second physician for review, approval, and signature
* once the second signature was obtained, the MEB was formally cancelled as the applicant had a valid profile which no longer cited limitations which prevented continued military service

19.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, 

and related policies and procedures.  Chapter 7 prescribes the policies and procedures related to physical profiling, a system for classifying individual Soldiers according to functional abilities.  Paragraph 7-4 (Temporary versus Permanent Profiles) provides that:

	a.  A profile is considered permanent unless a modifier of "T" (temporary) is added as described in b below.  A permanent profile may only be awarded or changed by the authority designated in paragraph 7–6 (Profiling Officer).

		(1)  Profiling officers should ensure when reviewing permanent profiles that the Soldier meets the medical retention standards of chapter 3.  This is especially important when the profile includes limitations that prohibit the Soldier from performing an alternate APFT, from wearing a protective mask, from wearing Kevlar, from firing a rifle, or from wearing load-bearing equipment or lifting weights required of the MOS.

		(2)  Failure to meet chapter 3 standards requires referral to an MEB/PEB.

		(3)  Permanent profiles may be amended at any time if clinically indicated and will automatically be reviewed at the time of a Soldier's periodic examination (emphasis added).

		(4)  The Soldier's commander may also request a review of a permanent profile in accordance with paragraph 7–12.

	b.  A temporary profile is given if the condition is considered temporary, the correction or treatment of the condition is medically advisable, and correction usually will result in a higher physical capacity.  Soldiers on active duty and Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers not on active duty with a temporary profile will be medically evaluated at least once every 3 months at which time the profile may be extended by the profiling officer.

		(1)  The profiling officer must review previous profiles before making a decision to extend a temporary profile.  Any extension of a temporary profile must be recorded on a DA Form 3349, and if renewed, item 9 on the DA Form 3349 must contain the following statement: "This temporary profile is an extension of a temporary profile first issued on (date)."

		(2)  Temporary profiles should specify an expiration date.  If no date is specified, the profile will automatically expire at the end of the third month.  In no case will individuals in military status carry a temporary profile that has been 

extended for more than 12 months collectively without positive action being taken either to correct the defect or to effect other appropriate disposition.  As a general rule, the physician initiating the temporary profile will initiate appropriate arrangements for the necessary correction or treatment of the temporary condition.  A temporary profile will be awarded by the authority in paragraph 7–6. Whenever a temporary medical condition is recorded on a DA Form 3349 or    DD Form 2808, the modifier "T" will be entered immediately preceding the appropriate PULHES numerical designator.

20.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  It provides for MEBs, which are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation
40-501, chapter 3.  If the MEB determines a Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a PEB.  Chapter 4 (Procedures):

	a.  Paragraph 3-10 provides that a Soldier determined unfit due to physical disability by the PDES may be deferred from disability separation or retirement when it is determined that the Soldier can still serve effectively with proper assignment limitations.  The Secretary of the Army, or his/her designee, may direct an involuntary COAD or continuation on active Reserve status (COAR) when the Soldier’s service obligation, or special skill and experience justify an involuntary continuation.

   b.  Paragraph 4-9 provides that the medical treatment facility (MTF) commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him/her and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to an MEB.

	c.  Paragraph 4–12 provides that the PEBLO will advise the Soldier of the results of the MEB.  The Soldier will be given the opportunity to read and sign the MEB proceedings.  If the Soldier does not agree with any item in the medical board report or NARSUM, he or she will be advised of appeal procedures.  Neither the PEBLO nor the attending medical personnel will tell the Soldier that he or she is medically or physically unfit for further military service, that he or she will be discharged or retired from the Army because of physical disability, a given percentage rating appears proper, or that a Line of Duty decision is final.

	d.  Paragraph 4-13 provides that those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a PEB for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically-disqualifying condition.

	e.  Paragraphs 6-1 through 6-7 provide that a Soldier determined unfit by the PDES, with a condition either stable or of a slow progression, who is physically capable of performing useful duty in a critical skill or shortage MOS may be COAD upon application as an exception to policy. 

      1.  In accordance with paragraph 6-7, to be considered for COAD or COAR, a Soldier must be:

         (a) Determined unfit by the PDES for a disability that was not the result of intentional misconduct nor willful neglect, nor incurred during a period of unauthorized absence.

         (b) Basically stable or have a disability that is of slow progression according to accepted by medical principles. It must not be deleterious to the Soldier’s health or prejudicial to the best interest of the Soldier or the Army. For example, the disability must not require undue loss of time from duty for medical treatment. It must not pose a risk to the health or safety of other Soldiers.

         (c) Physically capable of performing useful duty in an MOS for which currently qualified or potentially trainable (to include re-classification).

   (d) Eligible under one or more of the criteria listed below:

            (1) For COAD, have 15 but less than 20 years of active Federal service.  For COAR, have a total of 15, but less than 20 years of qualifying service for nonregular retirement;

            (2) Qualified in a critical skill or shortage MOS.  Such qualification must be confirmed in writing by the applicable personnel office and attached to the request; or

      (3) Disability resulted from combat or terrorism.

      2.  The application must be forwarded with either the MEB or with the Soldier’s election to the informal findings within the prescribed election time frame. 

21.  Army Regulation 40-400 (Patient Administration) prescribes policies and mandated tasks governing the management and administration of patients.  Chapter 7 governs the processing of Soldiers referred to the PDES.

	a.  Paragraph 7-10i(1) (Item 24) provides that in cases when the patient is located in the vicinity of the MTF, he or she will be advised of the approved findings by the PEBLO and asked to check the appropriate box indicating their concurrence or non-concurrence with the MEB findings and recommendation.  If the patient disagrees with the findings, he or she will be asked to prepare a statement citing reasons for disagreement.

	b.  Paragraph 7-13 provides that the appointing authority is also the approving authority for MEB proceedings.  He/she will not participate in the proceedings, either as a member, witness, consultant, or in any other capacity.  MEB proceedings and all addenda thereto will be reviewed by the approving authority and his/her action recorded.  When the findings and recommendation are approved, the recommended disposition will be effected at the earliest practicable date (emphasis added).  If the approving authority does not concur with the board's findings or recommendation, the proceedings will be returned to the board for further consideration.  The approving authority may delegate authority to review and act on MEBs.  The individual to whom this authority is delegated (for example, the DCCS) must not participate in the board proceedings either as a member, witness, consultant, or in any other capacity (emphasis added).

	c.  Paragraph 7-18 provides that upon completion of the MEB and approval of the proceedings, the member will be counseled concerning the findings.  If the member disagrees with the board, the member has 3 working days to prepare a written appeal for submission to the appointing authority.  If no action is taken by the member within 3 working days, the board results will be forwarded, as if approved by the member, to the Service reviewing authority for further action.  After approval by the Service reviewing authority and a disposition is recommended, the member will be advised of the proposed disposition.  The member will be afforded the opportunity to appeal the decision of the reviewing authority.  The member will ordinarily have 3 working days in which to submit an appeal.

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), chapter 3 prescribes the tasks, rules, and steps for processing voluntary resignations.

	a.  Paragraph 3-1 provides that any officer of the Active Army or USAR may tender a resignation under the provisions of this chapter.  The Secretary of the Army or his designee may accept resignations and orders will be issued by direction of the Commanding General, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC).  An officer whose resignation has been accepted will be separated on the date specified in DA's orders or as otherwise directed by the Department of the Army.

	b.  Paragraph 3-2 provides that an officer may request withdrawal of a resignation at any time prior to commencing travel pursuant to orders issued for the purpose of separating the officer.  The request, including reasons, will be forwarded through channels specified in paragraph 3-4.  A resignation may be withdrawn only with the approval of Headquarters, Department of the Army, with the exception of an unqualified resignation, which may be withdrawn on the approval of the endorsing commander in the field provided the resignation has not been forwarded to the Commander, HRC.

	c.  Paragraph 3-5 provides that an officer who requests resignation before completing the 8-year military service obligation (MSO) must agree to accept an indefinite appointment in the USAR to complete such service obligation.  The act of taking the Reserve officer's oath by an Active Army officer is sufficient to simultaneously terminate the officer's RA status by operation of law.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Court of Federal Claims on remand to the ABCMR asked it to examine two issues:

* the circumstances of the termination of the applicant's medical disability evaluation 
* whether she was properly separated from active duty at the end of her four-year commitment

2.  With respect to the circumstances of the termination of her medical disability evaluation, the evidence of record shows:

* she was able to perform the duties required of her military grade and specialty throughout her period of evaluation
* despite her duty performance, and based on her inability to overcome her chronic back injury, she was referred first to an MEB, and later a PEB 
* she filed an appeal to her approved MEB findings and recommendation
* her appeal was considered by the MEB approval authority and her case was returned to her physician for re-examination
* her re-examination showed marked improvement in her physical condition, based in large part on the applicant's own report of her positive response to a recent course of treatment, and resulted in an upgrade in her physical status, which in turn led to the termination of her MEB

3.  Army Regulation 635-40 states that MEBs are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.  As evidenced by her subsequent OERs, her ability to perform her required duties did not suffer during her period of injury; thus, it is reasonable to assume this fact, when coupled with her marked physical improvement, was considered when her physician recommended the termination of her MEB.

4.  Her attending physician re-examined her and determined her physical condition had improved sufficiently to warrant her further retention on active duty and the termination of her MEB.  Furthermore, it is presumed that her new physical, permanent profile, and NARSUM were reviewed by the MEB approval authority prior to formally terminating her MEB.  As such, there is no indication she was denied her rights under the MEB process.

5.  With respect to whether the applicant was properly separated from active duty, the document she submits as evidence that she wanted to remain on active duty is an unsigned, undated COAD request.  That request, apparently drafted when she was a 1LT and still facing an MEB/PEB and a potential finding of unfitness, was rendered meaningless – even had it been properly executed and submitted – when the applicant's condition improved and her MEB was terminated.

6.  More importantly, her justification for COAD is unclear.  Paragraph 6-7a (4) of Army Regulation 635-40 provides the 3 eligibility criteria for COAD.  She did not have at least 15 years of active Federal service and her disability did not result from combat or terrorism; therefore, in order for her to be retained on COAD, she would have had to show she was qualified in a critical skill, confirmed in writing by her personnel office and attached to her request in writing.  The evidence of record does not show she met this requirement.  

7.  The evidence of record tends to show that sometime after her successful MEB appeal the applicant submitted an unqualified resignation, requested a separation date well into the future, and opted to fulfill the balance of her 8-year MSO through service in the Reserve component.  On her pre-separation checklist, completed nearly 10 months before her separation date, she indicated her separation was voluntary and authenticated the document with her signature. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged after voluntarily resigning her commission.  This point is further substantiated by her execution of a Reserve officer's oath of office the day before the effective date of her separation and her subsequent assignment to a USAR TPU just 3 days afterwards.

8.  Finally, under the applicable regulation, the applicant was authorized to seek a delay in her separation date or to seek to withdraw her resignation entirely.  Such action would have allowed her to continue on active duty and reenter the PDES, if necessary.  However, there is no evidence applicant submitted any request to delay or withdraw her resignation.

9.  In view of the foregoing, it appears the applicant both voluntarily submitted a request for resignation and was properly separated.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ____x___  ___x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



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

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110023512



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007741



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1