IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:  1 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130010866 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction of errors in Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), reinstatement in the Army, and consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to captain (CPT)/O-3.

2.  He states he is no longer in the Army, and he has exhausted the administrative remedies available to him through the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC).

3.  He provides orders and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests:

	a.  removal of the applicant's OERs for the periods ending 17 February 2010 (hereafter referred to as contested OER 1) and 17 July 2012 (hereafter referred to as contested OER 2),

	b.  removal of the applicant's Academic Evaluation Report (AER) dated 19 December 2008 (hereafter referred to as the contested AER),

	c.  that the applicant be reinstated in the Army, and 

	d.  that the applicant be considered for promotion to CPT by an SSB.
2.  Counsel states there are five material errors that were substantially prejudicial to the applicant's rights.

	a.  The contested OERs should have been referred reports under the provisions of Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)), paragraph 3-26a(8).

	b.  The contested OERs were vague and unsubstantiated in that there is no evidence that the applicant made any mistakes that were a matter of counseling or professional development.  This is in violation of Army Regulation 623-3, paragraphs 3-17 through 3-19.  A zero-defect mentality for professional growth in a combat OER with praise for his combat record does nothing to assist personnel decision makers.

	c.  HRC improperly solicited a rebuttal statement from the applicant, thereby denying him an additional level of review from his senior rater because of a lack of responsiveness to efforts to contact the senior rater about properly referring the report.

	d.  The contested OERs excluded multiple significant accomplishments.

	e.  The contested AER should be removed from the applicant's Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) (formerly known as the Official Military Personnel File) because it contains inaccurate information and is missing information.  The applicant subsequently passed a retest.  The AER does not comment on the applicant's physical condition throughout the duration of the course.  He was suffering from food poisoning and proved his ability to adapt and pass the test after the effects of the food poisoning had dissipated.  

3.  Regarding contested OER 1, counsel describes the applicant's duties during the period and notes the report was not referred.  

	a.  Counsel states this OER is unfairly prejudicial and unsubstantiated with regard to the rater comments.  After favorable comments about the applicant's combat record, the rater inexplicably and gratuitously wrote that despite his "satisfactory performance in combat, he struggled as a platoon leader to learn from his mistakes resulting in additional work for himself and the company."  

	b.  Counsel states the senior rater's comment about the applicant's combat performance is invalid because the senior rater never had an opportunity to observe the applicant's combat performance.  The senior rater was assigned as the battalion commander after the unit redeployed from Iraq.  He wrote that the applicant "performed to a satisfactory level in combat, but often needed direct supervision to complete missions."  The senior rater's comment is unjust and inaccurate.

	c.  Army Regulation 623-3 provides that the primary function of the ERS is to provide information to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), for use in making personnel decisions.  The secondary function is to encourage professional development.  The regulation places restrictions on evaluation parameters and comments contained in evaluation reports.  

		(1) Paragraph 3-17(b) requires rating officials to "convey a concise but detailed evaluation to communicate a meaningful description of a Soldier's performance and potential."  

		(2) Paragraph 3-18 prohibits the use of "too brief comments." 

		(3) Paragraph 3-19 prohibits the use of unproven derogatory information.

		(4) Paragraph 3-26 provides that reports with negative rater comments should be referred.  

	d.  Portions of the rater comments in contested OER 1 were derogatory and required referral.  Comments were brief, lacked any meaningful description of the applicant's mistakes, were unsubstantiated or supported by developmental counseling forms, were inconsistent with the applicant's combat record, contradicted by character statements, and failed to provide personnel decision makers with the necessary information to make sound personnel decisions.  Therefore, the OER should be removed from the applicant's AMHRR.  

4.  Regarding contested OER 2, counsel states the report is adverse in that the rater and senior rater entered derogatory comments.  In particular, the senior rater suggested that the applicant lacked maturity.  

	a.  Following submission of the report to HRC, it was determined the report should have been referred.  Multiple attempts were made to contact the senior rater, but these efforts were ignored.  In February 2013, HRC solicited a rebuttal statement from the applicant.  (Counsel indicates a document at Tab J is related to this issue; however, the document at Tab J is a statement supporting the applicant's retention.)

	b.  The referral process is clearly outlined in Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-28, and it includes a due process right to comment on a referred report.  The right is specifically designed for comment directly to the senior rater.  Rating officials are empowered to reconsider their evaluations after the rated Soldier provides comment.  The process that HRC is creating denies the applicant an entire level of review in which the evaluator could alter his or her opinions.  The only reason for HRC's novel process is because the senior rater was unresponsive.  The refusal to respond was not a justification for HRC to create a novel referral process not contemplated under the regulatory scheme.  

	c.  The evaluators also impermissibly excluded multiple significant accomplishments, including:

* management and communication of the status of multiple engineer projects valued in excess of 163 million euros
* leading a multinational military and civilian quality assurance/quality check team of seven personnel reporting on a construction project worth 33 million euros
* identifying 20,000 square meters of land to accommodate future housing expansion and being responsible for reorganizing an ammo yard and container yard to gain 10,000 square meters of land
* planning, coordination, and monitoring of the reorganization of 300 multinational containers saving 45,000 euros
* completing 12 credit hours toward a graduate degree

	d.  Though the military has wide latitude to make administrative decisions, those decisions can be challenged if there is a specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory violation.  Government officials must follow their own regulations, even if they were not compelled to have them at all.  In this case, the failure to follow the referral process is attributed only to the senior rater's unwillingness to comply with the regulatory scheme or to respond to requests from HRC and the applicant to comply with the regulation.  

	e.  There is no question that the rater and senior rater made derogatory comments.  Also, the comments were brief, lacked any meaningful description of the applicant's mistakes, were unsubstantiated and unsupported by developmental counseling forms, were inconsistent with the applicant's combat record, were contradicted by character statements, and failed to provide personnel decisions makers with the necessary information to make sound personnel decisions.

5.  Counsel provides:

* nine-page Supplemental Statement
* memorandum, subject:  Evaluation Report Appeal (20090218-20100217)
* contested OER 1 and 2
* OERs for the periods ending 17 February 2011, 8 July 2011, 28 March 2012, and 1 March 2013
* contested AER 
* AER dated 20 February 2009
* 17 supporting statements

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Following a period of enlisted service in the Regular Army (RA) during which he completed basic combat training and the Officer Candidate Course, on 10 July 2008, the applicant took the oath of office as an RA second lieutenant in the Engineer Branch.  

2.  His AMHRR contains two DA Forms 1059 (Service School AER).

	a.  The contested AER, dated 19 December 2008, shows he failed to achieve course standards in Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) 501-08.  The AER was referred to him and he indicated he did not wish to make comments.  Item 14 (Comments) shows he failed to achieve course standards by failing the task force engineer exam with a score of 57 percent (%) and the retest with a score of 67.5%.  Item 14 also shows he had previously failed the horizontal engineering exam with a score of 64% and had passed the retest.

	b.  The second AER, dated 20 February 2009, shows he achieved course standards in Engineer BOLC 911-09.  

3.  Contested OER 1 covers the period 18 February 2009 through 17 February 2010 during which the applicant was assigned to the 509th Engineer Company, 5th Engineer Battalion.  It is filed in his AMHRR.  

	a.  Part II (Authentication) shows his rater was his company commander and his senior rater was his battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) HHT.  No entry was made indicating it was a referred report.  The applicant signed the report on 10 February 2010.

	b.  Part III (Duty Description) shows he performed principal duty as a platoon leader in a forward-deployed mobility augmentation company (MAC) charged with providing engineer support to maneuver units.  He was responsible for individual and collective training to enable the platoon to perform combat engineer missions and route clearance patrols in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  He was responsible for the readiness, discipline, morale, safety, and welfare of 28 Soldiers and their families; for the maintenance, readiness, and accountability of equipment worth over $3 million; and for transforming the platoon from a MAC platoon to a route-clearance platoon.  

	c.  Parts IVa (Army Values) and IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions) show all "yes" entries.  

	d.  Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater)) shows his rater marked the block for "satisfactory performance, promote" and entered the following comments:

[Applicant] led his platoon in combat for a month clearing over 2,000 [kilometers] of [main supply routes] and interdicting 2 stage 1 [improvised explosive devices].  He ensured the safety of his platoon by conducting composite risk management before every mission by requesting enablers and assets not on hand to mitigate identified and emerging threats.  [Applicant] conducted [quality assurance/quality control] inspections and oversaw the payments for the civil service corps (CSC) resulting in hundreds of Iraqis receiving horizontal construction training and civilian employment in local construction companies.  During Operation Enduring Rabiah, [applicant] led his platoon in conducting counter indirect fire patrols around Joint Base Balad in order to deny insurgents the ability to launch mortars and rockets into the [forward operating base].  [Applicant] planned and executed a culvert denial mission integrating numerous construction assets resulting in the denial of historic [improvised explosive device] hotspots.  Upon redeployment, [applicant] led his platoon through reset and ensured his Soldiers completed individual training and were prepared for collective training.  Despite [applicant's] satisfactory performance in combat, he struggled as a platoon leader to learn from his mistakes resulting in additional work for himself and the company.

[Applicant] has the potential for promotion if he can overcome his mistakes.  Assign as an assistant staff officer where he can continue to develop or grow.

	e.  Part VII (Senior Rater) shows his senior rater marked the block for "fully qualified" and entered the following comments:

Good performance.  [Applicant] is a dedicated officer and professional.  He performed to a satisfactory level in combat, but often needed direct supervision to complete missions.  Upon redeployment, [applicant] was instrumental in planning and ensuring his Soldiers completed individual training and were ready for collective training.  Good potential.  With positive mentorship and opportunities to learn and progress, [applicant] will continue to make a great leader.  Place in positions of increasing responsibility.  

4.  The exact dates of the applicant's deployment are not shown in the available records.  However, unit award records show the 509th Engineer Company, 5th Engineer Battalion, was cited for award of the Meritorious Unit Commendation for service in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom during the period 2 May 2008 to 6 July 2009, and an article from a newspaper serving the Fort Leonard Wood, MO, area shows the 5th Engineer Battalion completed its redeployment from Iraq on 6 July 2009.  

5.  The available records are void of documentation indicating a Commander's Inquiry (CI) was requested for contested OER 1.

6.  LTC HHT's OER for the period ending 29 May 2010 shows he took command of the 5th Engineer Battalion 60 days after the unit's redeployment.  

7.  The applicant's OERs for the periods ending 17 February 2011, 8 July 2011, and 28 March 2012 show his raters marked the block for "outstanding performance, must promote" and his senior raters marked the block for "best qualified."  

8.  Contested OER 2 covers the period 29 March through 17 July 2012 during which the applicant was assigned to the Kabul International Airport (KAIA) Multinational Force.  It is filed in his AMHRR.

	a.  Part II (Authentication) shows his rater was the Commander, Base Support Group, and his senior rater was the Commander, KAIA Multinational Force.  The senior rater was a U.S. Air Force (USAF) colonel/O-6.  No entry was made indicating it was a referred report.  The applicant signed the report on 14 July 2012.

	b.  Part III (Duty Description) shows he performed principal duty as an estates officer, which entailed a range of real estate management duties at KAIA.   

	c.  Parts IVa (Army Values) and IVb (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions) show all "yes" entries.  

	d.  Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater)) shows his rater marked the block for "satisfactory performance, promote" and entered the following comments:

[Applicant] has the potential to become a great officer.  He is technically and tactically proficient in performing basic Engineering task[s] per his career field.  As the Estates officer for KAIA, he was responsible for managing 760,000 square meters of land to accommodate 5000 residents and 300 containers.  [Applicant] also served as the Battle Captain in the KAIA North Base Operations Center…where he coordinated missions for the base Immediate Reaction Team.  [Applicant] coordinated 25 [medical evacuation] missions and organized the Honor Guards and coffin carriers for 11 [casualty evacuation] missions for fallen [Afghan National Army service members].  With the many jobs [applicant] was called upon to do, he did a fine job, but my concern is his ability to interact effectively with peers, tenants and superiors.  When given specific task[s] and guidance [applicant] performs his duties adequately but lacks empathy.  Before he transitions into a Company Command he needs to understand that effective communication is the key to success.  [Applicant] must learn how to follow before he attempts to lead.  He's not yet ready for the role of Company Commander but to prepare, [applicant] should seek refresher training in effective leadership, military customs and courtesy and Army Operations.

	e.  Part VII (Senior Rater) shows his senior rater marked the block for "fully qualified" and entered the following comments:

[Applicant] has the potential of becoming a great officer.  He is talented, but lacks the maturity that is expected at this level in his career.  With time and mentoring, [applicant] could become a fine officer.  Recommend he continues in staff officer positions to hone his leadership skills and receive senior level mentoring.  If possible, [applicant] should seek leadership positions in troop units[;] this training will be a refresher which will help to fully educate him on Army operations, customs and courtesy as well as military life and will build a solid foundation for his future service and success.  Once he demonstrates superior performance on a consistent basis he should be selected to attend the Captain's Career Course, then move on to Company Command.  

	f.  An entry at the bottom of page 2 of this OER shows it was reviewed by the Department of the Army on 27 August 2012.

9.  A review of HRC's Interactive Web Response System shows no evidence of attempts to contact the senior rater or the applicant regarding contested OER 2.  

10.  The available records are void of documentation indicating a CI was requested for contested OER 2.
11.  On 11 September 2012, the U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, MO, issued Orders 255-1319 discharging the applicant from the RA effective 1 March 2013.  

12.  His OER for the period ending 1 March 2013 shows his rater marked the block for "outstanding performance, must promote" and his senior rater marked the block for "best qualified."

13.  A DD Form 214 for the period ending 1 March 2013 shows he was discharged by reason of non-selection for permanent promotion.

14.  Counsel provides a memorandum, dated 25 January 2013, subject:  Evaluation Report Appeal (20090218-20100217), from a Human Resources Assistant, Appeals and Corrections Section, HRC.  The memorandum shows the applicant's appeal of contested OER 1 was returned without action due to insufficient evidence to show that the ratings and comments on the contested report were anything other than the considered opinions of the rating officials at the time of the evaluation.  

15.  Counsel provides 17 supporting statements.

	a.  An individual who identifies himself as having been a platoon leader in the same company during the period covered by contested OER 1 states he believes the rater's remarks are an accurate representation of the applicant's performance.  He believes the senior rater's comments are not valid, as they were written by a new battalion commander who did not personally know the applicant and therefore could not accurately comment on his performance.  He believes the OER was written as a challenge to the applicant, not as a means to keep him from being promoted.

	b.  The remaining statements are from senior noncommissioned officers, a warrant officer, and company and field grade officers.  They commend him for his performance during deployments, describe him as living the Army Values, and endorse his retention as an Army officer and promotion to CPT. 

16.  Army Regulation 623-3 prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army’s ERS, including the AER.  

	a.  Paragraph 2-7 (Rules for designating a senior rater) states, in part, that to render a written evaluation report, the senior rater will have been designated as the rated officer’s senior rater for a minimum period of 60 calendar days.

	b.  Paragraph 3-9 (Senior Rater) states, in part, that the narrative provided by the senior rater in part VII may be based in part on the rated officer’s final support form.  However, the choice of what to enter on the OER is ultimately up to the senior rater.

	c.  Paragraph 3-17 (Comments) states, in part, that in preparing their comments, rating officials will convey a precise but detailed evaluation to communicate a meaningful description of a Soldier’s performance and potential.  In this manner, both HQDA selection boards and career managers are given the needed information on which to base a decision.  Rating officials may consider including in their comments the degree of professionalism demonstrated by the rated Soldier in his or her particular area of expertise. 

	d.  Paragraph 3-18 (Prohibited Narrative Techniques) states, in part, that too brief comments, excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized will not be used.  These frequently need to be interpreted by selection boards and career managers.  If they are not correctly interpreted, the best interests of the Army and the rated Soldier are not served. 

	e.  Paragraph 3-19 (Unproven Derogatory Information) states any mention of unproven derogatory information in an evaluation report can become an appealable matter if later the derogatory information is unfounded.

		(1) No reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning a Soldier.

		(2) References will be made only to actions or investigations that have been processed to completion, adjudicated, and had final action taken before submitting an evaluation report to HQDA.  For example, rating officials are not prohibited from commenting on a court-martial (judicial), if completed, but the comments should focus on the behavior that led to the court-martial rather than the court-martial itself.  If the rated Soldier is absolved, comments about the incident will not be included in the evaluation.

	f.  Paragraph 3-26 (Referred Evaluation Reports) states OERs with the following entries are referred, or adverse, evaluation reports.  Such reports will be referred to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and an opportunity to comment before being submitted to HQDA.

		(1) A “NO” in part IV, blocks a through b.

		(2) A “FAIL” for the APFT in part IV, block c indicating noncompliance with the standards of Army Regulation 350–1; or a “NO” entry for the height and weight indicating noncompliance with the standards of Army Regulation 600–9.

		(3) A performance and/or potential evaluation of “Unsatisfactory Performance/Do Not Promote” in part V, block a.

		(4) A performance and potential evaluation of “Other” in part V, block a, where the required explanation has derogatory information.

		(5) A potential evaluation of “Do Not Promote” in part VII, block a.

		(6) A promotion potential evaluation of “Other” in part VII, block a, where the required explanation has derogatory information.

		(7) A promotion potential evaluation of “BCOM [below center of mass]-Retain” or “BCOM-Do Not Retain” in part VII, block b.

		(8) Any negative or derogatory comments in parts V, block b; V, block c; VI; or VII, block c.

	g.  Paragraph 3-28 defines the referral process.  It states the referral process ensures the rated Soldier knows that his or her OER or AER contains negative or derogatory information and affords him or her the opportunity to sign the evaluation report and submit comments, if desired.  The senior rater is responsible for ensuring that an OER is referred when required.  

	h.  Paragraph 3-28c(4) states that if the senior rater decides that a rated officer's comments provide significant new facts that could affect the evaluation, the senior rater may refer the comments to the other rating officials, as appropriate.  The rating officials, in turn, may reconsider their evaluations of the rated Soldier.  The senior rater or reviewing official will not pressure or influence another rating official.  Any rating official who elects to raise his or her evaluation as a result of this action may do so.  However, the evaluation may not be lowered because of the rated Soldier’s comments.  If the evaluation report is changed but still requires referral, the report will again be referred to the rated Soldier for acknowledgment and the opportunity to provide new comments, if desired.  Only the latest acknowledgment (“YES” or NO” on evaluation report signed by the rated Soldier) and the rated Soldier’s comments, if submitted, will be forwarded to HQDA.  

17.  Chapter 4 of Army Regulation 623-3 defines the Evaluation Redress Program.  It states:
	a.  Commanders are required to look into alleged errors, injustices, and illegalities in evaluation reports.  Alleged errors, injustices, and illegalities in a rated Soldier’s evaluation report may be brought to the commander's attention by the rated Soldier or anyone authorized access to the report.  A CI conducted by a commander in the chain of command above the designated rating officials may determine that an OER has serious irregularities or errors, such as unqualified rating officials or inaccurate or untrue statements.  If such irregularities or errors are discovered, an OER may be amended, provided it has not been accepted by HQDA for inclusion in the AMHRR.  If a CI is completed after an OER has been accepted by HQDA for inclusion in the AMHRR, the results of the CI will be filed with the OER in question in the Soldier's AMHRR.  A CI does not constitute an appeal of an OER; however, a CI may be used in support of an appeal.

	b.  An evaluation report accepted for inclusion in the official record of a rated Soldier’s AMHRR is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.

	c.  The rated Soldier or other interested parties who know the circumstances of a rating may appeal any report that they believe is incorrect, inaccurate, or in violation of the intent of this regulation.  

	d.  Substantive appeals will be submitted within 3 years of an AER or OER “THRU” date.  Failure to submit an appeal within this time will require the appellant to submit his or her appeal to the ABCMR.

	e.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration and that 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.

18.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) states an 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:

	a.  an officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of an administrative error (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); and/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).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not support the removal of the contested AER or OERs from the applicant's AMHRR.

2.  The contested AER shows he failed to achieve course standards in Engineer Basic Officer Leader Course (BOLC) 501-08.  There is no evidence of error in the information recorded on this AER, and there is no documentary evidence substantiating counsel's claim that an illness caused the applicant's failure to achieve course standards.  It is noted that the contested AER was referred to him and he declined the opportunity to comment.  The fact that he later achieved course standards is not evidence of an error in the contested AER nor is it a basis for removing the contested AER from his AMHRR. 

3.  Counsel makes several contentions regarding contested OER 1 and contested OER 2.  

	a.  Counsel contends that the contested OERs should have been referred reports.  

		(1) In contested OER 1, the applicant's rater stated he struggled as a platoon leader to learn from his mistakes.  This could be construed as a negative statement that required referral of the OER.  However, failure to refer this OER based on the rater's statement is not a basis for removing it from the applicant's AMHRR.  If he believed he had been deprived of due process with regard to this OER, he could have requested a CI, but it appears he did not do so.  

		(2) Contested OER 2 contains no negative or derogatory comments that required referral of the report.  The rating officials acted well within their authority to note areas in which the applicant needed further development and training.  Counsel states that HRC determined this report should have been referred.  He has provided no documentary evidence to support this statement and the available records show no evidence of this determination.

	b.  Counsel contends the contested OERs were vague and unsubstantiated.  This contention is without merit.  The OERs show the applicant's raters and senior raters provided a cogent summary of the applicant's performance and potential.  Further, there is no requirement for documented counseling to support comments made on an OER.  

	c.  Counsel contends HRC improperly solicited a rebuttal statement from the applicant regarding contested OER 2.  There is no documentary evidence to support this contention.  

	d.  Counsel contends the OERs excluded multiple significant accomplishments.  There is no requirement to document specific accomplishments on an OER.  Rating officials have wide latitude regarding what to enter and what to omit in the limited space available for comments on an OER.  

	e.  Regarding contested OER 1, counsel contends the senior rater's comment about the applicant's combat performance is invalid because the senior rater never had to opportunity to observe the applicant's combat performance.  The governing regulation does not limit a senior rater's comments to performance that was directly observed.  There is no evidence indicating the senior rater's comments were inaccurate.

4.  The applicant and counsel have not provided clear and convincing evidence of a strong and compelling nature establishing that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the contested AER and contested OERs.  Accordingly, there is no basis for amending these documents or removing them from the applicant's AMHRR.

5.  Because there is no basis for amending or removing the contested AER and contested OERs, there is no basis for referring the applicant to an SSB to be reconsidered for promotion to CPT.  Absent selection by an SSB for promotion to CPT, the reason for his discharge stands and there is no basis for reinstating him in the Army.  

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)                                         AR20130010866





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130010866



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1