IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120008471 


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:

The applicant defers his request, statement, and evidence to counsel. 

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE

1.  Counsel requests enforcement of the applicant's terms of his retiree recall agreement for placement on the Active Duty List (ADL) as a Regular Army (RA) warrant officer (WO), as set by his 2001 recall to active duty order, and assumed de facto status as repeatedly amended without changing the terms with obligated service through 2008.  The applicant should be afforded all rights and privileges for RA retention including:

* promotion consideration to chief warrant officer five
* entitlement to officer evaluation reports (OER's) to be filed in his Army Military Human Resource Record

2.  Counsel states:

	a.  The applicant was mobilized as a retiree recall from 2001 to 2008 and served continuously on active duty.  He was not placed in a special retiree recall status, but rather relieved from retired status, counted against the active Army end strength, and placed on the ADL as an RA officer.  He had to execute an oath of office which is required for placement on the ADL.  He was never told he would not be placed on the ADL.  His oath of office indicated an appointment with equal right to benefits.  Having executed an oath and being placed on the ADL alongside his peers, he was entitled to the same rights and benefits.  In order to compete for promotion, an officer must be placed on the ADL.  He was.

	b.  Military retirees on active duty when not appointed in the RA are ineligible for placement on the ADL.  They serve on active duty but remain in a retired status.  Only those retired military personnel who are recalled to active duty in a retired status are not eligible for promotion.  Counting a retired officer for the purpose of active duty end strength is distinct from placement on the ADL.  In other words, recalled retirees are not excluded from counting for end strength but are excluded from the ADL.  The applicant, in effect, never entered active duty in a retired status nor did he remain on the Retired List.  Rather, he was integrated into the RA on the ADL.

3.  Counsel provides:

* 1994 retirement DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* 2008 release from active duty DD Form 214
* extracts of Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), sections 501, 502, 505, 506, 207, 688, and 688a
* letters from the Assistant Secretary of Defense to the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Forces
* Department of Defense (DOD) report on a study regarding promotion eligibility of retired officers recalled to active duty
* memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
* farewell speech by the former Army Chief of Staff
* letter from the applicant to counsel
* Counsel’s medical status statement
* 1993 retirement orders
* 2001 officer duty appointment memorandum and rating chain
* OER for the rating period 7 June 2001 through 30 May 2002
* Military Personnel (MILPER) message, dated 10 October 2004, subject:  Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Limited Recall to ADL Appointments for Retired Major and WO Aviators
* MILPER message, dated 14 September 2006, subject:  All Army Activities (ALARACT) 174/2006, FY07 Officer/WO Call to Active Duty
* retiree recall Orders 34-1-A-71, dated 10 May 2001
* Officer Record Brief
* unit temporary change of station (TCS) orders
* Statement of Wartime Service
* Meritorious Service Medal Certificate
* Joint Service Commendation Medal Certificate and orders

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve WO with concurrent call to active duty and he executed a DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel) on 26 July 1977.  He was honorably released from active duty on 25 July 1980.

2.  He reentered active duty on 29 April 1981.  He executed an RA oath of office on 9 May 1985.  

3.  He served in a variety of stateside and overseas assignments and he was promoted to chief warrant officer four (CW4) on 1 January 1991.  He voluntarily retired on 31 July 1994 by reason of having sufficient service for retirement and he was placed on the Retired List in the rank/grade of CW4 on 1 August 1994.  His DD Form 214 listed his component as RA.

4.  On 12 January 2001, he submitted a DA Form 160 (Application for Active Duty) that shows he volunteered to enter active duty for 3 years beginning in January, February, or March 2001.  This form does not list the applicant's component and is stamped "Received 29 January 2001, PERSCOM [U.S. Total Army Personnel Command] Appointments."

5.  On 10 May 2001, PERSCOM (now known as the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC)) published Orders 34-1-A-71 recalling him to active duty from a retired status with assignment to the Aviation Center, Fort Rucker, AL, in the grade of CW4 (date of rank as 1 January 1991) on or about 9 June 2001.  The orders stated:

* he would be counted against the Active Army end strength (accession date of 8 June 2001)
* he would be placed on the ADL as an RA officer and that upon receipt of the RA order he must execute an oath of office or decline RA in writing

6.  On 30 May 2001, he executed an oath office as an RA officer.

7.  He received an OER covering the rating period 7 June 2001 through 30 May 2002 for his duties as an Instructor Pilot/Platoon Commander, 1st Battalion, 212th Aviation Regiment, Fort Rucker, AL.

8.  Subsequent to the September 2001 attack on the United States, laws, rules, and regulations were introduced, revised, or amended regarding the retiree recall program.  These changes were/are in the form of legislative statutes in Title 10, USC; ALARACT messages; MILPER messages; DOD directives; and/or Army Regulations.

9.  The applicant and/or his counsel provide:

	a.  a memorandum, 1st Battalion, 212th Aviation Regiment, dated 30 November 2002, subject:  Officer Duty Assignment/Rating Chain, that shows he was reassigned to another position within his battalion effective 3 October 2002;

	b.  a memorandum, 1st Battalion, 212th Aviation Regiment, dated 24 June 2003, subject:  Officer Duty Assignment/Rating Chain, that shows he was reassigned to another position within his battalion effective 3 July 2003;

	c.  a memorandum, 1st Battalion, 212th Aviation Regiment, dated 16 October 2003, subject:  Officer Duty Assignment, that shows he was reassigned to another position within his battalion effective 4 October 2003;

	d.  a system-generated email from a personnel policy integrator, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), dated 5 October 2007, advising him that others had problems in their records.  There were no orders authorizing him to be on active duty or his active duty orders had expired.  His active duty recall status was never indefinite and 3 years was the maximum an aviator could be recalled on orders.  He was given instructions for whom to contact and how to correct his situation;

	e.  MILPER message, dated 10 October 2004, subject:  FY05 Limited Recall to ADL Appointments for Retired Major and WO Aviators, that states exceptions to recall WO's (who retired prior to 1998) would be forwarded to the G-1 for case-by-case consideration in accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2003.  The sentence "Aviators would count against the active duty end strength" has been underlined;

	f.  MILPER message, dated 14 September 2006, subject:  ALARACT message 174/2006, FY07 Officer/WO Call to Active Duty, related to retiree recall to active duty;

	g.  DOD study regarding promotion eligibility of retired officers recalled to active duty that shows DOD wholeheartedly supports retiree recalls as a force multiplier but does not support introducing legislation that would make retired officers recalled to active duty eligible for promotion under the procedures established by Title 10, USC;
	h.  multiple letters from the Assistant Secretary of Defense to the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Forces advising him on DOD's position regarding this issue;

	i.  memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs to the Assistant Secretary of Defense explaining the Army's non-support of promotion eligibility of retired officers;

	j.  farewell speech by the former Army Chief of Staff thanking everyone for their service;

	k.  unit TCS orders with a listing – including the applicant's name – of Soldiers deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom;

	l.  Statement of Wartime Service, dated 4 December 2006, that shows he deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 7 January to 4 December 2006;

	m.  Meritorious Service Medal Certificate for service from 7 June 2001 to 31 March 2005; and

	n.  Joint Service Commendation Medal Certificate and orders for service in Iraq from 7 January 2006 to 9 December 2006.

10.  He was honorably released from active duty on 31 May 2008 by reason of completing his required active service.  He completed 6 years, 11 months, and 24 days of active service during this period.

11.  An advisory opinion was obtained from HRC on 7 March 2013 in the processing of this case.  HRC recommended disapproval of the applicant's request and stated the statutes mentioned in the applicant's application do not apply to him.  He reached retirement status on 31 July 1994.  Retired military personnel recalled to active duty in a retired status are not eligible for promotion consideration.  The statutes and regulations that govern the retiree recall and promotion eligibility of retired Soldiers are Title 10, USC, sections 688 and 12301D; ALARACT 225/2009, dated 11 August 2009; and Army Regulation 
601-10 (Management and Recall to Active Duty of Retired Soldiers of the Army in Support of Mobilization and Peacetime Operations).

12.  The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion but elected not to submit a reply.


13.  A second advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, on 6 June 2013 in the processing of this case.  The G-1 official stated after reviewing the applicant's case, his office is unable to provide the officer's requested relief based upon the following:  

	a.  Orders S203-12, dated 22 October 1993, and DD Form 214, dated 
31 July 1994, stated that the applicant was released from active duty and placed on the retired list effective 31 July 1994.

	b.  Orders 34-1-A-71, dated 10 May 2001, which recalled him to active duty and indicated that he would be placed on the ADL, contained errors that conflicted with statutory and regulatory authorities at the time.  Specifically, these orders failed to account for the following provisions of law, effective at the time of publication:

		(1)  Title 10, USC, section 582 provides that ADL and associated promotion eligibility under 10 USC, section 571 will not encompass retired warrant officers on active duty (other than retired warrant officers who were recalled to active duty before 1 February 1992, and have served continuously on active duty since that date).  In addition, 10 USC, section 620 defines the ADL as excluding individuals listed in 10 USC section 641, which includes retired warrant officers on active duty.

		(2)  Army Regulation 601-10 (Management and Recall to Active Duty of Retired Soldiers of the Army in Support of Mobilization and Peacetime Operations), dated 30 November 1994, stated in paragraph 1-6 that a recalled retiree who is ordered to active duty from the retired list serves in a retired status.  The regulation further states in paragraph 2-5 that retired military personnel recalled to active duty are not eligible for promotion.

		(3)  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions), dated 30 November 1994, stated in paragraph 1-10(e)(6) that officers on active duty based on a recall from retired status are not eligible for promotion.

	c.  Orders 34-1-A-71 contained additional erroneous information, to include citing 10 USC, section 1552 (ABCMR) as the authority for his recall to active duty.  There was no previous application on file at the Army Review Boards Agency to correct his military records that could have justified such a reference.

	d.  Regardless of the misinformation contained within Orders 34-1-A-71, the applicant was never actually placed on the ADL or within the considered population for promotion consideration.  This reality reflects that Aviation Branch - HRC - the same organization responsible for promulgating his original orders - maintained a proper understanding of the governing authorities and excluded the applicant from promotion consideration.  Despite his current complaint, there is no record within HQDA G-1 or HRC of an inquiry regarding his lack of promotion consideration during his seven-year recall period.

	e.  As part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2005, Public Law 108-375 § 506 mandated that the Secretary of Defense conduct a study to determine whether it would be equitable for retired officers on active duty, but not on the ADL by reason of 10 USC, section 582, to be eligible for promotion. On 4 August 2005, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness reported to the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services that making recalled retirees eligible for promotion would disadvantage the retiree and negatively impact promotion equity for those officers on the ADL.  These events affirm DOD and Congressional knowledge that retired officers recalled to active duty were not eligible for promotion during his recall period and reflect a policy determination not to extend promotion eligibility for these individuals.

14.  On 14 June 2013, the applicant's counsel responded to the G-1 advisory opinion.  He stated:

	a.  The G-1 Advisory opinion overlooks the fundamental issue in this unique retiree-recall case - the unfairness and inequity of Army recall orders that reneged on a written promise - what G-1 now admits was "misinformation"- to place the applicant on the ADL as an RA, with presumed equal access to the benefits of OERs and promotion consideration.  This promise, in practical effect, was an inducement in exchange for what the Army urgently needed in wartime - long-term overseas deployment including OIF combat duty (with risks to life) to fill critically short aviator positions during extended armed conflict.  The Army received these benefits, and the applicant performed his part of the bargain in good faith, while the Army broke faith by refusing to fulfill its promise.

	b.  Whether the Army's offer of its ADL promise was later discovered to be technically in legal error, misses the point.  The applicant, after accepting the orders and deploying, was not free to simply walk away - although the G-1 now says it is free to walk away from the promise.  The Army never amended his orders to modify the offer allowing the applicant to immediately end his duty - this further induced him to continue fulfilling his end of the bargain in good faith.  The Army, through the G-1 advisory opinion instead, dodges the injustice by nitpicky technical legalities.  This ignores the Board's broader mandate under 10 USC, section 1552 beyond legal errors to correct also "injustices" created by a service.  The court precedent in Robinson v. Resor, 469 F.2d 944 (D.C.CiT. 1972), best interpreted the BCMR's equitable mandate to correct injustice by quoting from the Supreme Court:


We hold that the relation of the Government to its Soldiers, both as to substantive decisions on their status and the procedures used to arrive 'at those decisions, must be "if not paternal at least avuncular."  Substantial fairness, rather than nitpicking compliance with precise regulations, must guide the Army's actions. The Army must not be allowed to reach, step by technical step, a result which, viewed in its entirety) constitutes, an overreaching leap into the arbitrary and inequitable. "

Robinson at 951 [emphasis added]. The G-1 advisory opinion is not guided by substantial fairness, but the condescension of a mindless bureaucratic machine.

	c.  The Army's offer and promise - accepted by the applicant - at great self sacrifice and risk - but then later refused by the Army, has been otherwise found in an unrelated BCMR case.  That case involved an officer accession to the ADL with promotion reconsideration.  In ABCMR Docket Number AR2001056808 (2002)[CPT Mxxxxx Jxxxxx]) the BCMR recognized an injustice was created when the Army verbally offered Active Guard Reserve (AGR) accession and duty orders, the officer verbally accepted, but the Army later revoked the promised offer and accession after discovering he was ineligible then refused to process a waiver as an exception to policy:  "Notwithstanding [that officials acted in accordance with policy and regulation] the applicant was contacted by officials of the Accessions Branch and [applicant] accepted the position he was offered.  It was incumbent on those officials to verify his eligibility for that position prior to making the offer and once made ...following through with his waiver request was a reasonable expectation."  The BCMR then presumed the exception to policy (waiver) was approved, and the officer was granted promotion reconsideration as an AGR.  The greater principle in AR2001056808 is of substantial fairness - as with applicant, it was incumbent on those recall-accession officials to verify his ADL/RA eligibility prior to making the offer, and once made and accepted, to follow through with ADL was a reasonable expectation.  Instead, the Army persisted by extracting further sacrifice with overseas tours and combat deployment.  This long-term combat deployment points to another error in the 
G-1 advisory opinion when it cites the Congressional Report as recommending 'against' retiree recalls on the ADL.  The report here was relying on the regulatory and statutory purpose of aviator recalls' official purpose for stateside volunteers limited to staff duties on a short-term basis.  The G-1 advisory opinion overlooks that the report added a caveat saying that it would be not be fair for long-term recalls to remain ineligible for promotion.  The applicant's 2001 orders quickly placed him in command and leadership duties, with a 2005 transfer  to a TO&E unit in Germany, then involuntary deployment to Iraq through 2008 in (OlF).  In the applicant's case, the long-term and combat duties went far beyond the scope of the report's recommendation that recalled retirees in general should not be eligible for promotion.  The report actually supports the injustice created in the applicant's case. 

15.  The current version of Title 10, USC, section 688 states:  (a) the Secretary of a Military Department may order to active duty a retired member who agrees to serve on active duty in an assignment intended to alleviate a high-demand, low-density military capability or in any other specialty designated by the Secretary as critical to meet wartime or peacetime requirements.  Any such order may be made only with the consent of the member ordered to active duty and in accordance with an agreement between the Secretary and the member; (b) the period of active duty of a member under an order to active duty under subsection (a) shall be specified in the agreement entered into under subsection (a); (c) no more than a total of 1,000 members may be on active duty at any time under subsection (a); (d) the authority to order a retired member to active duty under this section is in addition to the authority under section 688 of this title or any other provision of law authorizing the Secretary concerned to order a retired member to active duty; (e) retired members ordered to active duty under subsection (a) shall not be counted for purposes of section 688 or 690 of this title; (f) a retired member may not be ordered to active duty under this section after 31 December 2011; and (g) in this section, the term "high-demand, low-density military capability" means a combat, combat support or service support capability, unit, system, or occupational specialty that the Secretary of Defense determines has funding, equipment, or personnel levels that are substantially below the levels required to fully meet or sustain actual or expected operational requirements set by regional commanders.

16.  Title 10, USC, section 688a, was not codified or in effect at the time of the applicant's recall to active duty.  The National Defense Authorization Act for FY00, Public Law 106-65, section 501 (Temporary Authority for Recall of Retired Aviators), dated 1 October 1999, provided authority, other than Title 10, USC, section 688, for the Secretary of the Army to recall retired aviators to fill staff positions.  The recall could only be made with the consent of the officer recalled. 
This authority did not require an agreement with the officer.  Title 10, USC, section 688, did not at the time and does not now require an agreement.

17.  Title 10, USC, section 12301D, states at any time an authority designated by the Secretary concerned may order a member of a Reserve Component under his jurisdiction to active duty or retain him or her on active duty with the consent of that member.

18.  ALARACT 225/2009, dated 11 August 2009, states voluntary recall of retired Soldiers under the provisions of Title 10, USC, section 688, is reinstated.  Initial tours of duty will not exceed 365 days.  Exceptions will be considered for overseas contingency operational requirements on a case-by-case basis.

19.  Army Regulation 601-10 prescribes policy and responsibilities for recalling retired Soldiers in time of a national emergency, mobilization, or war when declared by the President or Congress, in the interest of national defense, or as otherwise authorized by law; recalling retired Soldiers to fill active Army requirements in support of peacetime operations; pre-assigning selected retired Soldiers; and peacetime management of retired Soldiers in preparation for their use.

20.  Army Regulation 601-10, paragraph 2-4 (Active Duty Grade and Promotion) of the current version of the regulation, states retired Soldiers ordered to active duty will be ordered to active duty in their current grade on the Retired List unless otherwise directed by HQDA.  A member of the Retired Reserve ordered to active duty under the provisions of Title 10, USC, section 12301a or 12301d, must be ordered to active duty service in his or her Reserve grade.  When the retired Soldier is ordered to active duty, the Soldier is reinstated only during that period of active duty with all privileges associated with that rank on active duty to include rank order (for example, an O-4 is a higher grade than an O-3, an E-7 is a higher grade than an E-5).  Rank among officers of the same grade or of equivalent grades is determined by comparing the dates of rank.  Retired military personnel recalled to active duty in retired status are not eligible for promotion.  The version of the regulation in effect at the time contained similar provisions and so specifically stated that retired military personnel recalled to active duty in a retired status are not eligible for promotion.

21.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System (ERS).

	a.  Paragraph 3-2h states retirees recalled to active duty will not receive evaluation reports because they no longer compete for promotion.  At the option of the rating chain, all aspects of the ERS may be used as a communication tool at the local or unit level, but a final report will not be submitted for processing.  Therefore, no recalled retiree will be considered as part of the senior rater profile population.

	b.  Paragraph 3-32 states Soldiers who have returned to active duty following retirement provide valuable service as a result of their years of experience and expertise.  Retired Soldiers recalled to active duty are not eligible for evaluation reports because they have completed the professional development personnel life-cycle function and do not compete for subsequent promotions.  Therefore, no evaluation report submitted on a recalled retired Soldier will be processed by HQDA.  Rating chains can execute all aspects of the ERS as a communication and feedback tool through informal or unofficial performance counseling of recalled retired Soldiers on a local basis.  Recalled retired Soldiers can serve as rating officials.

	c.  Previous versions of the regulation contained provisions that recalled retirees did not receive evaluation reports that were processed by HQDA because they no longer compete for promotion.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant served on active duty as a CW4 through 31 July 1994 when he retired by reason of completion of required service.  He was an RA officer prior to his retirement.

2.  Years later in June 2001, he volunteered to reenter active duty under the retiree recall program.  His initial tour of duty was for 3 years.  His component is not listed on his DA Form 160.  In any case, as the events of September 2011 unfolded, the Army had a greater need for those with critical skills to volunteer for specific military jobs.  It appears the applicant continued to serve in a retiree-recall status until his release from active duty in May 2008.

3.  Retired officers recalled to active duty may be eligible for an increase in retirement pay if the time they spend in a recalled status increases their years of service, but by legal statute and regulation they are not eligible for promotion.  DOD considered this issue and conducted a study in relation to promotion of retiree recall officers but found it neither practical nor warranted.  As such, no legislation was introduced to allow retiree recalls to be considered for promotion and/or promotion.

4.  Counsel focuses on the unfairness of those retired officers who volunteered to reenter active service to serve their country but fails to recognize that such prohibition is required by law.  Army regulations prohibit promotion of retired Soldiers.  In any case:

	a.  Orders S203-12, dated 22 October 1993, and DD Form 214 (dated 
31 July 1994) stated that the applicant was separated and placed on the retired list effective 31 July 1994.  Additionally, Orders 34-1-A-71, dated 10 May 2001, which recalled him to active duty and indicated that he would be placed on the ADL, contained errors that conflicted with statutory and regulatory authorities at the time.  Specifically, these orders failed to account for the following provisions of law, effective at the time of publication:

		(a)  Title 10, USC, section 582 provides that ADL and associated promotion eligibility under Title 10, USC, section 571 will not encompass retired warrant officers on active duty (other than retired warrant officers who were recalled to active duty before1 February 1992, and have served continuously on active duty since that date).  In addition, Title 10, USC, section 620 defines the ADL as excluding individuals listed in Title 10, USC, section 641, which includes retired warrant officers on active duty.

		(b)  Army Regulation 601-10, dated 30 November 1994, stated in paragraph 1-6 that a recalled retiree who is ordered to active duty from the retired list serves in a retired status.  The regulation further states in paragraph 2-5 that retired military personnel recalled to active duty are not eligible for promotion. 

		(c)  Army Regulation 600-8-29, dated 30 November 1994, stated in paragraph 1-10(e)(6) that officers on active duty based on a recall from retired status are not eligible for promotion.

	b.  Orders 34-1-A-71 contained additional erroneous information, to include citing Title 10, USC, section 1552 (Correction of Military Records) as the authority for his recall to active duty  There was no previous application on file at the Army Review Board Agency to correct his military records that could have justified such a reference.

	c.  Regardless of the misinformation contained within Orders 34-1-A-71, the applicant was never actually placed on the ADL or within the considered population for promotion consideration.  Despite his current contention, there is no record within HQDA G-1 or HRC of an inquiry regarding his lack of promotion consideration during his seven-year recall period.

	d.  As part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2005, Public Law 108-375, section 506 mandated that the Secretary of Defense conduct a study to determine whether it would be equitable for retired officers on active duty, but not on the ADL by reason of Title 10, USC, section 582, to be eligible for promotion.  On 4 August 2005, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness reported to the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services that making recalled retirees eligible for promotion would disadvantage the retiree and negatively impact promotion equity for those officers on the ADL.  These events affirm DOD and Congressional knowledge that retired officers recalled to active duty were not eligible for promotion during hisrecall period and reflect a policy determination not to extend promotion eligibility for these individuals.  

	e.  Likewise, retired Soldiers recalled to active duty are not eligible for evaluation reports because they have completed the professional development personnel life-cycle function and do not compete for subsequent promotions.

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 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)                                         AR20120008471



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120008471



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1