IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120013819 


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:

* deferment of the applicant's 1 October 2012 separation date until his appeal is resolved
* removal of the applicant's DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) for the period 9 September 2005 through 13 July 2006 (hereafter referred to as the 1st contested OER) from his official military personnel file (OMPF)
* removal of the applicant's DA Form 67-9 for the period 14 July 2007 through 13 July 2008 (hereafter referred to as the 2nd contested OER) from his OMPF
* removal of the applicant's DA Form 67-9 for the period 11 June 2009 through 21 May 2010 (hereafter referred to as the 3rd contested OER) from his OMPF
* consideration for promotion to major (MAJ) by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, 2010, and 2011 promotion boards
* A personal appearance hearing

2.  Counsel states:

* The applicant has been twice non-selected for promotion to MAJ and he is currently scheduled for discharge effective 1 October 2012
* The applicant has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal as well as several personal awards and decorations
* In the 1st contested OER, the senior rater mentioned ambiguous comments that were inconsistent with the rater's evaluation and unsubstantiated by any evidence
* In the 2nd contested OER, the rater and senior rater provided contradictory comments
* In the 3rd contested OER, the senior rater's comments are "nonsense" and the OER had not been finalized by the time the applicant was reassigned
* Multiple errors occurred in three different OERs

3.  Counsel provides:

* The applicant's Officer Record Brief (ORB), dated 1 May 2012
* Memorandum issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), Fort Knox, KY, subject:  Notification of Separation Due to Non-Selection for Promotion, dated 9 March 2012
* The three contested OERs
* DA Form 31 (Request and Authority for Leave) for the period 20 May to
8 June 2010
* Orders Number 324-17, issued by the U.S. Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Bragg, NC, dated
20 November 20090
* DA Form 5960 (Authorization to Start, Stop, or Change Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ), and/or Variable Housing Allowance (VHA)), dated 
11 June 2010
* Emails from HRC dated between 7 June and 23 July 2012

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior enlisted service, the applicant was appointed as a Reserve commissioned officer with concurrent call to active duty.  He executed an oath of office on 14 December 2000.  He completed the Chemical Officer Basic Course on 8 August 2001 and he was promoted to captain (CPT) on 1 March 2005.

2.  During August 2006, he received the 1st contested OER – a change of rater report that covered 10 months of rated time from 9 September 2005 through 13 July 2006.  He was serving as a "Brigade Chemical Officer" while assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 2nd Infantry Division Artillery, Korea.  His rater was MAJ CS, the brigade S-3, and his senior rater was lieutenant colonel (LTC) RCS, the brigade executive officer.  The OER shows in:

	a.  Part  IVa (Army Values) and Part IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions), the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" block for all areas.

	b.  Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater) - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed an "X" in the "Satisfactory Performance - Promote" block, and entered the following comments:

[Applicant] has rendered a satisfactory performance during this rating period.  [Applicant's] expertise and knowledge of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) operations has enhanced Fires Brigade's CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) logistical readiness from 79% to 90%.  He worked tirelessly to ensure the Brigade CDE (Chemical Defense Equipment) reports were accurate each month.  [Applicant], coupled with the leadership of his NCO (Noncommissioned Officer), conducted realistic and tough low-density MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) training that ensured each of the three BN (Battalions) CBRN Sections were prepared and ready to fight.  As a result, the 2nd Infantry Division Commander awarded 
B/1-38 FA (B Battery, 1st Battalion, 38th Field Artillery Regiment) the NBC Room of the Quarter for 3rd Quarter, FY06 (Fiscal Year 2006).  [Applicant] seamlessly performed his duties of CBRN Officer and Battle Captain during Warpath I, RSOI/Foal Eagle, and Warrior Stand To.  [Applicant] worked hard to support the operations of the Brigade S-3 section.  He volunteered often for various projects, such as:  he served as the action officer of the lieutenant staff ride, updated the BDE (Brigade) Flood and Snow Control OPLANs (Operations Plans), flawlessly planned, coordinated, and executed the BDE Spring Cleanup Week, and raised over $10,000 as the battery Army Emergency Relief representative.  [Applicant] served as an English tutor and volunteered numerous hours to assist patients at the Camp Casey Emergency R0om.  Overall, [Applicant's] performance has been noteworthy. 

	c.  Part Vc (Comment on Potential for Promotion), the rater entered the comment: "[Applicant] exhibits sufficient work ethic and knowledge base to function with success in assigned areas; he needs to improve his efficiency, organizational, and interpersonal skills.  Provide him additional opportunities to further his growth as a staff officer prior to assuming command."

	d.  Part VIIa (Senior Rater - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Qualified" block and a second "X" in the "Yes" block to indicate he senior rated 1 officer of this grade (at the time) and that a DA Form 67-9-1 (Officer Evaluation Report Support Form) was received with this report and considered in his evaluation and review.

	e.  Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in the Same Grade), the senior rater listed three future assignments for which the applicant was best suited and entered the following comments in Part VIIc (Comment on Performance/Potential):

[Applicant] is a dedicated officer who has served faithfully throughout his tenure.  [Applicant] possesses ample knowledge and skill to perform technical tasks without constant supervision, but when assigned other tasks, there is a noticeable decline in performance and increased supervision is required.  He is a fully capable officer who demonstrates the ability to lead, but requires additional developmental jobs to hone critical analytical and planning skills.  He has the willingness to put forth the necessary effort to become a full time contributor to the Army team. Applicant does show some potential for company command, but he must take advantage of every opportunity to develop the necessary attributes to lead Soldiers.  Promote to Major with peers.

3.  Since the 1st contested OER contained negative information, it was referred to the applicant for comments.  He contended that:

* there was a personality conflict between him and his rating officials
* his rating official had an inferiority complex because they had not served in combat
* he was not in Korea to hang out with his buddies; he was there to do his job as a Soldier
* he was not in initially counseled by his rater until he brought the issue up
* 
his rater was more concerned with playing basketball and visiting Japan
* he was not provided with any professional counseling
* he addressed the issues with his senior rater who advised him not to worry and that the OER would not impact his promotion to MAJ

4.  The 1st contested OER was signed by him, his rater, and his senior rater on 14 August 2007.  The contested OER was processed by HRC on
15 August 2007.

5.  Upon completion of his Korea tour, he was reassigned to the
1st Sustainment Command (Theater), Fort Bragg, as the Deputy G-3 Chemical Officer.

6.  During July 2008, he received the 2nd contested OER – a change of rater report that covered 12 months of rated time from 14 July 2007 through 13 July 2008.  He was serving as "Deputy G-3 Chemical Officer."  His rater was MAJ MDZ, the CBRN Officer, and his senior rater was LTC RRS, the Chief, Current Operations.  The OER shows in:

* Part  IVa and Part IVb, the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" block for all areas
* Part Va, the rater placed an "X" in the "Satisfactory Performance - Promote" block, and entered positive comments in Part Vb
* Part Vc, the rater entered positive comments about potential for promotion
* Part VIIa, the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Qualified" block and a second "X" in the "Yes" block to indicate he senior rated 1 officer of this grade (at the time) and that a DA Form 67-9-1 was received with this report and considered in his evaluation and review
* Part VIIb, the senior rater listed three future assignments for which the applicant was best suited and entered positive comments

7.  The 2nd contested OER was signed by him, his rater, and his senior rater on 5 August 2008.  The contested OER was processed by HRC on 8 August 2008.

8.  On or about 14 July 2008, he assumed command of Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Airborne and Special Operations Test Directorate (ABNSOTD).  While in this position, he received a change of rater OER that covered the rating period 14 July 2008 through 10 June 2009.  This report is not being contested.

9.  During May 2010, he received the 3rd contested OER – a change of rater report that covered 12 months of rated time from 11 June 2009 through
21 May 2010 for his duties as company commander of ABNSOTD.  His rater was LTC REE, the Chief, Senior Test Officer/TJ, and his senior rater was colonel MAH, the U.S. Army Operational Test Command (USAOTC) Commander.  The OER shows in:

* Part  IVa and Part IVb, the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" block for all areas
* Part Va, the rater placed an "X" in the "Satisfactory Performance - Promote" block, and entered positive comments in Part Vb
* Part Vc, the rater entered positive comments about potential for promotion
* Part VIIa, the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Qualified" block and a second "X" in the "Yes" block to indicate he senior rated 1 officer of this grade (at the time) and that a DA Form 67-9-1 was received with this report and considered in his evaluation and review
* Part VIIb, the senior rater listed three future assignments for which the applicant was best suited and entered positive comments

10.  The 3rd contested OER was not signed by the applicant (the senior rater indicated that the applicant failed to sign his OER prior to his permanent change of station; he was informed to sign it by his rater and senior rater on multiple occasions; all attempts to contact the applicant resulted in negative contact) but was signed by his rater and his senior rater on 4 June 2010 and it was processed by HRC on 24 June 2010.

11.  On 9 March 2012, by memorandum, HRC officials notified the applicant that he was considered for promotion to MAJ by the FY12 MAJ Maneuver, Fires and Effects; Operations Support and Force Sustainment Promotion Selection Board but he was not selected.  Additionally, since this was his second non-selection (he was previously considered by the FY11 MAJ promotion board), he was required by law to be separated no later than 1 October 2012.

12.  The Fiscal Year 2011 MAJ/O-4 board convened on 27 October 2010 and recessed on 19 November 2010 at Fort Knox, as scheduled, to consider certain Maneuver, Fires and Effects; Operations Support and Force Sustainment captains for promotion.  The primary zone included officers with O-3 dates of rank (DOR) of 1 March 2005 through 31 December 2005.  Also eligible were below-zone candidates with DORs of 1 January 2006 through 18 January 2007, and previously considered above-zone captains with DORs of 28 February 2005 and earlier.

13.  The Fiscal Year 2012 MAJ/O-4 board convened on 18 October 2011 and recessed on 10 November 2011 at Fort Knox to consider certain Maneuver, Fires and Effects; Operations Support and Force Sustainment captains for promotion.  The primary zone included officers with an O-3 DOR of 1 January 2006 through
18 January 2007.  Also eligible were below-zone candidates with DORs of
19 January 2007 through 30 January 2008 and previously considered above-zone captains with DORs of 31 December 2006 and earlier.

14.  On 9 April 2012, he acknowledged the notification of separation memorandum and indicated that he desired to be appointed in the U.S. Army Reserve after his separation.

15.  In or around June 2012, he submitted, through counsel, an appeal of the three OERs.  However, on 13 July 12, HRC returned his appeal without action as follows:

* The 1st and 2nd contested OERs were subject to time restrictions established in Army Regulation 623-3 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System); his appeal exceeded the 3-year time limitations
* The appeal pertaining to the 3rd contested OER did not contain any evidence and therefore, it did not meet the criteria for an appeal

16.  There is no indication the applicant has complied with HRC's memorandum regarding a proper appeal to HRC of the 3rd contested OER as outlined in Army Regulation 623-3.  As such, he has not exhausted his administrative remedy.

17.  The applicant/counsel provides a DA Form 31, a copy of Orders Number 324-17, and a DA Form 5960 that essentially show he was on assignment instructions to Fort Benning, GA, with a report date of not later than 16 July 2010.  He signed out of Fort Bragg on ordinary/permanent change of station leave on 20 May 2010 and he signed in at Fort Benning on 8 June 2010.  He also began some of his financial entitlements on 8 June 2010.

18.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant's request for the correction of a military record.  The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it.  In appropriate cases, it directs or recommends correction of military records to remove an error or injustice.  The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record:

	a.  Paragraph 2-5 states the ABCMR will not consider an application until the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies to correct the alleged error or injustice.

	b.  Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.

19.  Army Regulation 623-105 (Officer Evaluation Reporting System), dated 
17 December 2004, in effect at the time the applicant received the 1st contested OER prescribes the policies and tasks for the Officer Evaluation Reporting System and includes policy, statements, operating tasks, and rules in support of operating tasks.

	a.  Paragraph 1-4(i) states referred reports are provided to the rated officer for acknowledgment or comment before being sent to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA).

	b.  Paragraph 3-33 states if referral is required, the senior rater will place an "X" in the appropriate box in part IIe of the completed report (for example, when the senior rater has signed and dated the report).  The report will then be given to the rated officer for signature and placement of an "X" in the appropriate box in part IIe.  The rated officer may comment if he or she believes that the rating or remarks are incorrect.  The comments must be factual, concise, and limited to matters directly related to the evaluation on the OER; rating officials may not rebut rated officer's referral comments.  Extraneous or voluminous material, material already contained in the officer's file, and enclosures or attachments, are not normally in the rated officer's best interest; and they, therefore, should be avoided.  Any enclosures or attachments will be withdrawn and returned to the rated officer when the OER is forwarded to DA.  The rated officer's comments do not constitute an appeal.  Appeals are processed separately as outlined in chapter 6.  Likewise, the rated officer's comments do not constitute a request for a Commander's Inquiry.  Such a request must be submitted separately.  If the senior rater decides that the comments provide significant new facts about the rated officer's performance and that they could affect the rated officer's evaluation, he or she may refer them to the other rating officials.  They, in turn, may reconsider their evaluations. The senior rater will not pressure or influence them.  Any rating official who elects to raise his or her evaluation of the rated officer as a result of this action may do so.  However, the evaluation may not be lowered because of the rated officer's comments.

	c.  Paragraph 3-57 states an evaluation report accepted by HQDA and included in the official record of an officer is presumed to be administratively correct; have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials and represents the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

	d.  Paragraph 6-6 states an appeal must be supported by substantiating evidence.  An appeal that alleges a report is incorrect or inaccurate or unjust without usable supporting evidence will not be considered.  Appeals alleging bias, prejudice, inaccurate or unjust ratings, or any matter other than administrative error, are substantive in nature and will be adjudicated by the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-1 Officer Special Review Board (OSRB).

	e.  Paragraph 6-7 states substantive appeals prepared on the DA Form 67-9 must be submitted within 3 years of the completion date.  Failure to submit an appeal within this time may be excused only if the appellant provides exceptional justification to warrant this exception.

	f.  Paragraph 6-8 states the burden of proof rests with the appellant. Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  If the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of his/her assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions.

20.  Army Regulation 623-3, dated 15 May 2006, in effect at the time the applicant received the 2nd contested OER prescribes the policies and tasks for the Officer Evaluation Reporting System.

	a.  Paragraph 1-9 states Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or NCO corps.  Performance will be evaluated by observing action, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of the values, leadership framework and responsibilities identified on the evaluation forms, counseling forms, and as explained in Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System).  Potential evaluations will be performance-based assessments of the rated officers or NCO of the same grade to perform in positions of greater responsibility and/or higher grades.

	b.  Paragraphs 6-3 and 6-4 state, in pertinent part, that the primary purpose of a Commander's Inquiry is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record.  A secondary purpose is to obtain command involvement in clarifying errors or injustices after the evaluation is accepted at HQDA.  However, in these after-the-facts cases, this paragraph is not intended to be a substitute for the appeals process, which is the primary means of addressing errors and injustices after they have become a matter of permanent record.

	c.  Paragraph 6-11a states the burden of proof rests with the appellant to justify deletion or amendment of a report.  The appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that (1) the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration, and (2) action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.  Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility or administrative error or factual inaccuracy.  If the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of the assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions.

21.  Department of the Army Pamphlet 623-3 prescribes the procedures for completing Army evaluation reports for officers and NCOs.  Table 2-2 states the rated individual will sign and date the report after its completion and signature by all rating officials in the rating chain.  The rated individual's signature verifies the accuracy of the administrative data in Part I, the rating officials in Part II, the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), and height and weight data in Part IVc, and that the rated individual has seen the completed report, Parts I through VII.  This action increases administrative accuracy of the report since the rated individual is most familiar with and interested in this information.  If the rated individual is unavailable, unable, or fails to sign the report for any reason, the senior rater will either resolve the problem or explain why in Part VIIc and the rated individual's signature is left blank.  The report will not be delayed because it lacks the rated individual's signature.

22.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 632 (effect of failure of selection for promotion: captains and majors of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and lieutenants and lieutenant commanders of the Navy) states except an officer of the Navy and Marine Corps who is an officer designated for limited duty (to whom section 5596(e) or 6383 of this title applies) and except as provided under section 637(a) of this title, each officer of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps on the active-duty list who holds the grade of captain or major, and each officer of the Navy on 

the active-duty list who holds the grade of lieutenant or lieutenant commander, who has failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade shall - (1) except as provided in paragraph (3) and in subsection (c), be discharged on the date requested by him/her and approved by the Secretary concerned, which date shall be not later than the first day of the seventh calendar month beginning after the month in which the President approves the report of the board.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes policies and procedures governing promotion of Army commissioned and warrant officers on the active duty list.

	a.  Paragraph 5-1 states officers in the grade of MAJ, CPT, and first lieutenant who are twice not recommended for promotion will be advised of the effect of their non-selection in correspondence from HRC on or about the release date of the board results.

	b.  Paragraph 7-2 states special selection boards (SSB) may be convened under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 628 to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when HQDA discovers one or more of the following:

		(1)  An officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error (SSB required).

		(2)  The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error (SSB discretionary). 

		(3)  The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant, a CPT, was twice considered for promotion to MAJ but he was not selected.  As required by law and regulation, he was issued a memorandum advising him of the effect of his non-selection in correspondence from HRC and his expected release date.  He provides no evidence to indicate his release date is in error or should change.

2.  With respect to the 1st contested OER:

	a.  He received a change of rater OER that covered the period 9 September 2005 through 13 July 2006.  His rater rated his performance and potential as "Satisfactory Performance - Promote" and his senior rater rated his promotion potential as "Fully Qualified."  As the OER contained negative information, it was referred to him for comments.

	b.  He provided his comments and his senior rater presumably considered those comments and appears to believe the comments did not provide significant new facts about the rated officer's performance.

	c.  The applicant was a senior CPT at the time and he had a considerable amount of responsibility to ensure the counseling occurred in accordance with regulatory guidance.  His contention that there was no counseling lacks merit and does not invalidate a report.  Additionally, as a senior CPT with many years of service and having previously received other OERs, he had a responsibility and an obligation to participate in the counseling process.

	d.  There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided sufficiently compelling evidence that shows the contested OER is substantively inaccurate and does not accurately reflect his performance or potential or that his rater and/or senior rater did not comply with the regulatory requirements of evaluating him in a fair and unbiased manner.

	e.  Based on the applicable regulations, the contested OER is correct as constituted and the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to justify its removal.

3.  With respect to the 2nd contested OER:

	a.  The contested OER is not a referred report; both the rater and senior rater inserted favorable comments and he is described as fully qualified with the entry "promote to major."  His contention that the report may have affected his promotion is speculative and does not invalidate the contested OER.  There is insufficient evidence to show his promotion selection or non-selection is attributed to this particular OER since promotion boards are not authorized to divulge the reason for a member's non-selection.

	b.  Aside from his perceived dissatisfaction with his rating, the applicant did not provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity and justify the removal of the contested OER.  Based on the applicable regulations, the contested OER is correct as constituted and the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to justify its removal.

4.  With respect to the 3rd contested OER, Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-5 states the ABCMR will not consider an application until the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies to correct the alleged error or injustice.  The applicant has failed to resubmit his appeal of this OER through HRC.

5.  With respect to promotion consideration by the 2009, 2010, and 2011 promotion boards, the applicant's date of rank to CPT was 1 March 2005.  He was in the zone of consideration for promotion to MAJ in 2011.  He was considered by the FY10 and FY11 promotion boards but he was not selected.  He may have been considered as a below the zone officer by the FY09 board Regardless, since there is no material error in his record, he does not qualify for an SSB.

6.  The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered.  However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board.  Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR.  In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant/counsel is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time.  As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.

7.  After a comprehensive review of the evidence in the applicant's official record, his contentions and arguments, and the evidence he submitted in support of his application, other than his dissatisfaction, he did not show by clear and convincing evidence that his OERs should be removed, his discharge date should be changed, or that he should be considered by an SSB.

8.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20120013819



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120013819



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1