IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 May 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130001460 


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.  Through a court remand from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, the applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier applications to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for correction of his record by:

	a.  revoking his retirement orders and

	b.  considering him for promotion to the rank of colonel (COL) by a special selection board (SSB).

2.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, directs the ABCMR to address the following specific issues:

	a.  whether Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), dated 14 December 2001, and the applicant's temporary physical profile, dated 13 October 2009, should have affected his ability to be reassigned or deployed at the time he received his request for orders (RFO) on 17 November 2009;

	b.  if the applicant's temporary physical profile should have affected his ability to be reassigned or deployed, whether he actually reported or had any regulatory requirement to ensure reporting of his temporary physical profile to his branch manager prior to receiving his RFO;


	c.  if the applicant's temporary physical profile should have affected his ability to be reassigned or deployed, to what extent, if any, did the physical profile and applicable regulations require certain procedures to be followed prior to the applicant's “ability to be reassigned or deployed"; and

	d.  if the applicant's temporary physical profile should have affected his ability to be reassigned or deployed and the Army did not follow proper procedures in reassigning him, whether he should be considered by an SSB for promotion to COL or be granted other relief.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20100019930 on 9 December 2010 and Docket Number 
AR20110011217 on 27 October 2011 and administrative record.

2.  The applicant and counsel did not provide any new evidence.  However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, directed the Board to address four specific questions.

3.  The applicant was initially appointed as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve on 22 May 1988 and entered active duty on 4 September 1988.  He was appointed a Regular Army officer on 15 November 1989.  Throughout his career, he served in a variety of positions and ascended through the commissioned officer ranks until he was ultimately promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) on 1 April 2005.

4.  On 13 October 2009 while assigned to the Office of the Chief of Public Affairs (OCPA), Pentagon, he was issued a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) by Dr. G____.  This form reflects the following information:

	a.  Item 1 (Medical Condition) shows the basis for his physical profile was an illness or disease manifesting as "adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and overweight."

	b.  Item 2 (Codes) is blank and indicates no specific assignment limitations.

	c.  Item 3 (Temporary/Permanent P – Physical Capacity or Stamina, 
U – Upper Extremities, L – Lower Extremities, H – Hearing and Ears, E – Eyes, 
S – Psychiatric (PULHES)) is blank.

	d.  Item 4 (Profile Type) indicates he was assigned a temporary physical profile with an expiration date of 14 December 2009.

	e.  Item 5 (Functional Activities for Permanent and Temporary Profiles) is blank and does not indicate he had any limitations or conditions which prevented deployment or permanent change of station (PCS).

	f.  Item 6 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)) indicates his physical profile prohibited him from performing any APFT or alternate APFT events.

	g.  Item 7 (Standard or Modified Aerobic Conditioning Activities) is blank.

	h.  Item 8 (Upper Body Weight Training) is blank.

	i.  Item 9 (Lower Body Weight Training) is blank.

	j.  Item 10 (Other) contains the entry:  "No APFT, No Body Fat Measurement, patient is under treatment at present."

	k.  The lower right-hand corner of the form contains the following guidance:

PROFILING OFFICER (OR APPROVING AUTHORITY IF APPLICABLE) IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE PULHES & DATE OF PROFILE IS ENTERED INTO MEDPROS [MEDICAL PROTECTION SYSTEM].  ORIGINAL COPY POSTED IN MEDICAL RECORDS, 1 COPY TO UNIT COMMANDER, 1 COPY GIVEN TO SOLDIER, 1 COPY TO MILPO [MILITARY PERSONNEL OFFICE].

5.  On 17 November 2009, the applicant was issued an RFO by his assignment manager at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) for a PCS reassignment from the Pentagon to Fort Riley, KS, with a reporting date of 1 December 2009.

6.  It appears the applicant consulted with his assignment manager about retirement in lieu of PCS.  On 10 December 2010 in response to the applicant's email to an HRC official, the official notified him that his retirement paperwork had to be submitted within 30 days of the original notification date of the RFO, i.e., by 17 December 2009.  The official added that the temporary physical profile was between the applicant and his medical care provider and for the most part it seemed that "folks have worked it out so they can deploy, but also mitigated the health risk."


7.  On 13 December 2009, the applicant was issued another DA Form 3349 by a different doctor (Dr. L____).  This form reflects the following information:

	a.  Item 1 shows the basis for his physical profile was an illness or disease manifesting as "Major Depressive Disorder, single episode, moderate."

	b.  Item 2 contains the entry "V" which indicates the applicant had specific restrictions on deployment noted in his medical record (Army Regulation 
40-501, Table 7-2 (Profile Codes)).

	c.  Item 3 indicates he was assigned a temporary functional capacity of "3" in the Psychiatric factor.

	d.  Item 4 indicates he was assigned a temporary physical profile with an expiration date of 15 March 2010.

	e.  Item 5 indicates his temporary physical profile rendered him unable to:

		(1)  carry and fire individually-assigned weapon;

		(2)  move with a fighting load at least 2 miles;

		(3)  wear protective mask and all chemical defense equipment;

		(4)  construct an individual fighting position; and

		(5)  do 3-5 second rushes under direct and indirect fire.

	f.  Item 6 indicates his temporary physical profile did not prohibit him from performing any APFT events.

	g.  Item 7 indicates he could perform all of the standard aerobic conditioning activities.

	h.  Item 8 indicates he could perform upper body weight training.

	i.  Item 9 indicates he could perform lower body weight training.

	j.  Item 10 contains the entry "Pt [patient] should not have access to weapons or alcohol during this acute phase of treatment."  There is no indication that this is an extension of a previously-issued physical profile.


	k.  the lower right-hand corner of the form contains the following guidance:

PROFILING OFFICER (OR APPROVING AUTHORITY IF APPLICABLE) IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE PULHES & DATE OF PROFILE IS ENTERED INTO MEDPROS.  ORIGINAL COPY POSTED IN MEDICAL RECORDS, 1 COPY TO UNIT COMMANDER, 1 COPY GIVEN TO SOLDIER, 1 COPY TO MILPO.

8.  On 15 December 2009, the applicant submitted a voluntary request for retirement with an effective date of 31 May 2010 in lieu of complying with PCS instructions.  In his request, the applicant acknowledged he had been counseled and understood that if his application were accepted by the Secretary of the Army, it could not be withdrawn except for extreme compassionate reasons or for the definitely-established convenience of the government.

9.  On 18 December 2009, he submitted a request to withdraw his voluntary request for retirement and requested to be allowed to continue to serve in his current capacity until his treatment was completed on or about 15 March 2010.  He indicated he did not want to retire and that he was compelled to put forth a request for retirement in lieu of accepting PCS orders to Fort Riley, KS.

10.  On 30 December 2009, his psychiatrist recommended rescission of his RFO until the expiration of his temporary physical profile on 15 March 2010.

11.  The applicant's DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) rendered for the period 10 March 2009 through 26 February 2010 shows he passed the APFT on 25 February 2010 and his rater opined his performance was outstanding and he must be promoted to COL immediately.  The rater stated the applicant was clearly the "go-to guy" in the Media Relations Division and added that he handled every mission expertly.  The applicant's senior rater evaluated his promotion potential to the next higher grade as "Best Qualified" and stated he was clearly one of the top performing LTCs in the career field and ranked him as in the top 4 of the 25 LTCs who had worked for him in that career field.  The senior rater opined the applicant is a leader, strategist, and future general officer in public affairs.  He concluded the applicant should be promoted immediately, allowed to develop strategic communications for senior commanders, and groomed as the next chief of public affairs.

12.  On 21 January 2010, his request for voluntary retirement was approved.  On 1 March 2010, he submitted a request to withdraw his approved retirement.  On 12 March 2010, he was seen by his physicians and an additional 90 days were added to the original temporary physical profile.  His request for withdrawal was disapproved on 17 March 2010.
13.  On 23 March 2010, he submitted a request for an exception to policy to revoke his approved retirement in lieu of PCS in order to allow him to continue to serve in his current capacity until his treatment was complete.  He stated, "I accept responsibility for not discussing my medical issues with my branch manager sooner, which if I had, could have prevented some of the confusion.  However, due to the stigma attached to depression, medication, etc., I was hesitant as to the response I would receive.  Due to some of the issues mentioned above, I believed there was no other choice but to submit a retirement in lieu of PCS to continue my mental health treatment."  Brigadier General 
L____ M. B____, Chief, Public Affairs, Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), recommended approval of the applicant's request for withdrawal of his previously-approved retirement request.

14.  On 9 April 2010, HRC approved a 90-day extension to cover the time frame of the applicant's temporary physical profile.  This changed his retirement date from 31 May 2010 to 31 August 2010.

15.  On 6 May 2010, a system-generated email notified the applicant that he had been removed as a candidate from the Fiscal Year 2010 Maneuver, Fire, and Effects Promotion Selection Board and advised him to contact his career manager at HRC if he had any questions.

16.  On 25 May 2010, HRC received a fourth request from the applicant for a date change to his approved retirement in lieu of PCS.

17.  On 8 June 2010, Major General S____ J. B____, Commanding General, HRC, notified the applicant that his request to change his approved retirement in lieu of PCS had been reviewed as an exception to policy and was disapproved.

18.  After a thorough review of the applicant's medical records, temporary physical profile, and discussion with all his medical providers, the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) rendered a decision on 20 July 2010 that there were no limitations to the officer continuing service.  On 21 July 2010, the HRC Retirements Branch notified the applicant of the decision to reconsider the withdrawal of his retirement.  However, he was advised that due to previous requests being answered and closed, he would need to submit a new application for withdrawal.  That same day, the applicant responded that unless he was to be seen by an SSB for COL/O-6, he would continue with out-processing and retire effective 31 August 2010.  According to the legal opinion from the Office of the Judge Advocate General to HQDA G-1, the applicant was not eligible for an SSB.
The specific basis for this legal opinion was not provided.

19.  As a result, he retired in the rank of LTC on 31 August 2010.
20.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation (including retirement) and provides information on related policies and procedures.  The applicable version of the regulation in this case, dated 14 December 2007, became effective 14 January 2008 and provided the following:

	a.  Chapter 5 (Medical Fitness Standards for Miscellaneous Purposes) sets forth medical conditions and physical defects that are causes for rejection for specific types of training, specific types of duty, Army service schools, enlisted military occupational specialties (MOS), geographical area assignments, and deployment.  The standards apply to applicants or individuals from all components of service under consideration for selection or retention in these programs, assignments, or duties.

		(1)  All Soldiers considered medically qualified for continued military status and medically qualified to serve in all or certain areas of the continental United States are medically qualified to serve in similar or corresponding areas outside the continental United States.

		(2)  Some Soldiers, because of certain medical conditions, may require administrative consideration when assignment to combat areas or certain geographic areas is contemplated to ensure they are used within their medical capabilities without undue hazard to their health and well-being or producing a hazard to the health or well-being of other Soldiers.

		(3)  Active duty Soldiers who do not meet the medical retention standards in chapter 3 of this regulation must be referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB)/physical evaluation board (PEB) for a fitness-for-duty determination.  Soldiers with a permanent "3" or "4" in the physical profile factor who meet or might meet medical retention standards must be referred to an MOS Medical Retention Board (MMRB) to determine if they are worldwide deployable (or be granted a waiver according to Army Regulation 600-60 (Physical Performance Evaluation System)).  However, Soldiers returned to duty by an MMRB or PEB or Soldiers with temporary medical conditions may still have some assignment/
deployment limitations that must be considered before a decision is made to deploy.

		(4)  Assignment determinations are under the purview of HQDA G-1.  Specific duties in the assignments are under the purview of the Soldier's commander.  Medical guidance is critical in advising commanders and assignment officers of potential problems, physical limitations, and potential situations that could be harmful to the Soldier and/or those with whom the Soldier serves.  Medical guidance is provided in the form of physical profiles (permanent and temporary) and occurs during deployment processing or during the medical review prior to overseas assignment.

		(5)  Medical standards for deployment are meant as general guides.  The final recommendation is based on clinical judgment and commander's input which considers the geographical area in which the Soldier will be assigned and the potential environmental/austere conditions to which the Soldier may be subject.  Certain medical conditions must be reviewed carefully by the clinician before making a recommendation as to whether the Soldier can deploy to duty in a combat zone (or austere isolated area where medical treatment may not be readily available).  A psychiatric condition controlled by medication should not automatically lead to nondeployment.  Soldiers with a controlled psychiatric illness can still deploy.  The recommendation of deployability should rest with the clinical judgment of the treating physician or other privileged provider, in consultation with the unit commander.  If there are any questions on the safety of psychiatric medication, a psychiatrist should be consulted.  However, the decision is ultimately the responsibility of the commander.

	b.  Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) prescribes a system for classifying individuals according to functional abilities.  The physical profile serial system is applicable to members of any component of the U.S. Army throughout their military service, whether or not on active duty.  The physical profile serial system is based primarily upon the function of body systems and their relation to military duties.  The functions of the various organs, systems, and integral parts of the body are considered.  Since the analysis of the individual's medical, physical, and mental status plays an important role in assignment and welfare, not only must the functional grading be executed with great care, but clear and accurate descriptions of medical, physical, and mental deviations from normal are essential.

		(1)  In developing the system, the functions have been considered under six factors designated as PULHES.  Four numerical designations are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity.  The basic purpose of the physical profile serial is to provide an index to overall functional capacity.  Therefore, the functional capacity of a particular organ or system of the body, rather than the defect per se (emphasis in the original), will be evaluated in determining the numerical designation "1," "2," "3," or "4."

		(2)  The factors to be considered are as follows:

		(a)  P – physical capacity or stamina,


		(b)  U – upper extremities,

		(c)  L – lower extremities,

		(d)  H – hearing and ears,

		(e)  E – eyes, and

		(f)  S – psychiatric.  This factor concerns personality, emotional stability, and psychiatric diseases.

		(3)  Paragraph 7-3d provides that four numerical designations are assigned for evaluating the individual’s functional capacity...  The numerical designator is not an automatic indicator of "deployability" or assignment restrictions...  (3) A profile containing one or more numerical designators of "3" signifies that the individual has one or more medical conditions that may (emphasis added) require significant limitations.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with his or her physical capability for military duty.

		(4)  Paragraph 7-3e provides that (1) Determination of individual assignment or duties to be performed is a commander’s decision...  Profiling officers will provide enough information regarding the Soldier’s physical limitations to enable the nonmedical commander and AHRC to make a determination on individual assignments or duties...  (2) It is the responsibility of the commander or personnel management officer to determine proper assignment and duty, based upon knowledge of the Soldier’s profile, assignment limitations, and the duties of their grade and MOS...  (3) The commander has the final decision on the deployment of Soldiers in his/her unit.  When medical providers and commanders disagree on the medical readiness status of a Soldier, the decision will be raised to the first general officer in the Soldier’s chain of command, who will review both medical and commander recommendations and make the final decision whether to deploy the Soldier.

		(5)  Paragraph 7-12a provides that commanders and personnel officers are responsible for necessary personnel actions, including appropriate entries on personnel management records and the assignment of the individual to military duties commensurate with the individual’s physical profile and recorded assignment limitations.

		(6)  Paragraph 7-13 provides that the DA Form 3349 will not be used to excuse Soldiers from the provisions of Army Regulation 600-9.  Army Regulation 600-9 contains a standard memorandum for completion by a physician if there is an underlying or associated disease process that is the cause of the over-weight condition.  The inability to perform all APFT events or use of certain medications is not generally considered sufficient medical rationale to exempt a Soldier from Army Regulation 600-9.

		(7)  Table 7-1 (Physical Profile Functional Capacity Guide) provides the following guidance for rendering serials for psychiatric profiles:

		(a)  "S1" – no psychiatric pathology.  May have a history of a transient personality disorder;

		(b)  "S2" – may have a history of recovery from an acute psychotic reaction due to external or toxic causes unrelated to alcohol or drug addiction;

		(c)  "S3" – satisfactory remission from an acute psychotic or neurotic episode that permits utilization under specific conditions (assignment when outpatient psychiatric treatment is available or certain duties can be avoided); and

		(d)  "S4" – does not meet "S3" above.

21.  MEDPROS was developed by the U.S. Army Medical Department to track all immunization, medical readiness, and deployability data for all Active and Reserve Components of the Army as well as Department of the Army civilians, contractors, and others.  It is a powerful tool allowing the chain of command to determine the medical and dental readiness of individuals, units, and task forces.
Commanders and medical leaders at various echelons are responsible for the use and implementation of MEDPROS to measure their unit/individual medical readiness status.  The comprehensive medical readiness data includes all medical and dental readiness requirements in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-101 (Personnel Processing – In-, Out-, Soldier Readiness, Mobilization, and Deployment Processing).  They include immunizations, permanent physical profiles/duty limitations, eyeglasses/inserts, blood type, medical warning tags, personal deployment medications, pregnancy screening, and dental status, among other data elements.

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-101 provides that when prescreening Soldiers for PCS moves who have a temporary physical profile, it should be determined if the physical profile is in compliance with the time limitations (including extensions) of Army Regulation 40-501.  Soldiers PCS'ing with a temporary physical profile may depart on a PCS move if cleared to do so by the medical treatment facility.  The same guidance pertains to Soldiers who are scheduled for deployment.


23.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 
6-17 (Rules for Processing Retirement in Lieu of PCS) states an officer may request retirement in lieu of PCS when he or she has at least 19 years and 6 months of active Federal service and a firm PCS alert is received.  The retirement request must be submitted within 30 calendar days of the alert.  The retirement will not be withdrawn nor will the effective date of the retirement be extended unless the officer request to withdraw the subsequent request or change the requested date of separation in order to continue to serve based upon the needs of the Army.

24.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the policies and procedures for promotion of commissioned officers on the Active Duty List.  Paragraph 1-10e (Promotion Eligibility) states that officers whose established separation or retirement date falls within 90 days after the date on which the board is convened are not eligible for consideration by a promotion selection board.  Additionally, chapter 7 provides for SSB's.  It states SSB's 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:

	a.  an officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error.  This would include officers who missed a regularly scheduled board while on the Temporary Disability Retired List and who have since been placed on the Active Duty List (SSB required);

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

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

25.  Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body) it caused an individual's non-selection by a promotion board and that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion.  An officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB when an administrative error was immaterial or the officer, exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered and corrected the error in his/her official records.



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remanded this case and directed the ABCMR to address four specific issues.

	a.  whether Army Regulation 40-501, dated 14 December 2001, and the applicant's temporary physical profile, dated 13 October 2009, should have affected his ability to be reassigned or deployed at the time he received his RFO on 17 November 2009;

	b.  if the applicant's temporary physical profile should have affected his ability to be reassigned or deployed, whether he actually reported or had any regulatory requirement to ensure reporting of his temporary physical profile to his branch manager prior to receiving his request for orders;

	c.  if the applicant's temporary physical profile should have affected his ability to be reassigned or deployed, to what extent, if any, did the physical profile and applicable regulations require certain procedures to be followed prior to the applicant's ability to be reassigned or deployed; and

	d.  if the applicant's temporary physical profile should have affected his ability to be reassigned or deployed and the Army did not follow proper procedures in reassigning him, whether he should be considered by an SSB for promotion to COL or be granted other relief.

2.  As pertains to the first issue posed by the court:

	a.  Army Regulation 40-501 states medical standards for deployment (and PCS) are meant as general guides.  The final recommendation is based on clinical judgment and commander's input which considers the geographical area in which the Soldier will be assigned and the potential environmental/austere conditions to which the Soldier may be subjected.  Certain medical conditions must be reviewed carefully by the clinician before making a recommendation as to whether the Soldier can deploy to duty in a combat zone (or austere isolated areas where medical treatment may not be readily available).  A psychiatric condition controlled by medication should not automatically lead to nondeployment.  Soldiers with a controlled psychiatric illness can still deploy.  The recommendation of deployability should rest with the clinical judgment of the treating physician or other privileged provider in consultation with the unit commander.  If there are any questions on the safety of psychiatric medication, a psychiatrist should be consulted.

	b.  The evidence shows he was issued a DA Form 3349 on 13 October 2009 which assigned him a temporary physical profile with an expiration date of 14 December 2009.  Items 2, 3, and 5 of this form were left blank and did not indicate he had any limitations or conditions which prevented deployment or PCS.  Army Regulation 40-501, dated 14 December 2007, provides that the disposition of the physical profile form for temporary physical profiles only requires the original to be filed in the Soldier's health record, one copy to be provided to the unit commander, and one copy to be provided to the Soldier.  There is no requirement to provide copies of temporary physical profiles to HRC branch managers.  In view of the foregoing, his temporary physical profile should have had no impact on his ability to be reassigned or deployed at the time he received his RFO on 17 November 2009.

3.  Nothing about the applicant's physical profile of 13 October 2009 should have affected his ability to be reassigned and subsequently deployed at the time he received his RFO.  On its face, the 13 October 2009 physical profile appears to be nothing more than a temporary physical profile designed to avoid the APFT and associated weigh-in.  Not a single block on the form addressing any functionality other than those related to the performance of APFT events is checked.  This is the case despite the fact that there is no logical connection between the medical conditions cited, "adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood an overweight," and a physical inability to perform push-ups, 
sit-ups, and a two-mile run.  There was also no indication that his condition had any effect on his ability to perform his duties.  In fact, his performance of duty at and through the time he was issued the profile, as reflected in his March 2009 through February 2010 OER, was not just satisfactory, it was stellar.  Since he was able to perform the duties of his rank and specialty, neither his commander at the time he received his RFO nor his assignment officer had any reason to believe otherwise.

4.  The T-3 profile should not have affected applicant’s ability to be reassigned or deployed at the time he received his RFO.  This is the case regardless of whether or not the profile was known to applicant’s assignments officer.  Because the answer to the Court’s first question is in the negative, it is not necessary to answer the three remaining questions.  Contrary to applicant’s assertions, his retirement was not coerced nor was he in any way forced to choose between his health and his career.  The applicant retired because he chose to retire rather than PCS and potentially deploy to Iraq.  There is no error or injustice.  Applicant is not entitled to the relief requested or any other.   




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X____  ___X____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket 
Number AR20100019930 on 9 December 2010 and/or Docket Number 
AR20110011217 on 27 October 2011.



      ___________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.