BOARD DATE:	  17 April 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130012594 


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, in effect, reconsideration of his previous request to be evaluated under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and that he be medically discharged or retired by reason of physical disability.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

   a.  He seeks to clarify why his psychiatrist in Iraq indicated the bipolar II disorder that he was diagnosed with was considered "Not Work Related:  Not Battle Related."  According to the American Psychiatric Association bipolar disorder is caused by extreme stress and he was subjected to extreme stress in the Iraq war zone.

   b.  He received a 50 percent (%) service-connected disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for bipolar disorder.  He believes the VA's ruling may supersede or overrule the psychiatrist’s diagnosis that the disorder was not work or battle related.

   c.  He takes issue with the Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated      23 July 2008, that indicates he was not taking medication for his bipolar II disorder.  Records subsequently indicate the discontinuance of a prescribed medication which indicates it must have been prescribed earlier.  The record containing the prescription must be missing.
   
   d.  He takes issue with the Board's previous assertion that he had not shown how his disorder was so severe as to mitigate the misconduct he committed and he questions what the parameters of severity are.  His exposure to the hanging death of his brother-in-law combined with his combat exposure in Iraq affected his Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor levels which triggered his bipolar disorder.  He now takes lithium to manage his disorder.
   
   e.  Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental illness associated with substantial functional impairment.  Nobody watched him 24/7, so the severity of his disorder was not recorded and does not require justification of the severity of his symptoms.  It incontrovertibly establishes that his bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused his offenses in the U.S. Army; therefore, he appeals for mercy and compassion to be granted a medical discharge.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a self-authored statement
* 5 Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* AF IMT 3899 (Patient Movement Record)
* VA Rating Decision
* 5 letters
* 2 memoranda
* Patient Release/Discharge Instructions
* DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile)
* 4 photographs
* Military Memorial Luncheon Notice
* 3rd U.S. Cavalry Association Lifetime Member Certificate

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's request for processing through the PDES.

2.  Counsel states:

   a.  The applicant suffered a significant traumatic event on 27 November 2006.  He made the unfortunate discovery of his brother-in-law's suicide.  He was hospitalized at a psychiatric hospital from 7 to 15 December 2006 for PTSD and personality disorder (not otherwise specified (NOS)), and prescribed Abilify and Celexa.  He was subsequently hospitalized again at Fort Hood, TX.  He presented his requests for mental assistance to his chain of command and sought a hardship discharge.  When things grew worse, he went absent without leave (AWOL).

   b.  The applicant was AWOL from 23 January 2007 to 17 March 2008.  On  24 February 2007, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 23 January 2007.  The charges were subsequently withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice after the applicant voluntarily returned and volunteered to deploy.

   c.  The applicant deployed to Mosul, Iraq on 8 May 2008.  While in Mosul, his forward operating base was regularly hit with mortars.  He guarded the gates as a .50 caliber gunner.  The gates were hit by vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices many times.  Deployment worsened his mental health and on 23 July 2008, he was seen by a psychiatrist and diagnosed with bipolar II disorder.  He was prescribed Seroquel then Risperdal, two antipsychotic medications.  Despite his illness, a mandatory medical evaluation board (MEB) was not convened for further evaluation of his service-disqualifying condition and he was not referred to the PDES as prescribed by Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).
   
   d.  On 23 July 2008, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for his AWOL and two occasions of being disrespectful toward a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO).  His mental illness was not considered with respect to his court-martial charges.
   
   e.  On 7 August 2008, under psychotic medications, and after conferring with counsel, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His counsel also submitted a request for a sanity board with respect to the court-martial charges.  On 22 August 2008, the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial was approved by the convening authority.  He was then medically evacuated to Fort Hood in September 2008.  While there he was under constant care for his diagnosed condition.  His treating physician recommended he receive an MEB and not a court-martial, but his command proceeded with the chapter 10 discharge as planned.  On 3 October 2008, the applicant was discharged and given an other than honorable characterization of service under chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). 
   
   f.  On 8 June 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his discharge to a general discharge and restored his rank to specialist.  However, the ADRB determined the reason for his discharge, to include the Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code, was both proper and equitable.
   
   g.  The applicant petitioned the VA and on 11 May 2010, he received service connection for bipolar disorder with an evaluation of 50%, effective 4 October 2008.   
   h.  In 2012, the applicant petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for an upgrade of his general discharge, change in separation authority, separation code, and RE code.  The petition was denied on 3 July 2012.  Again in 2012, the applicant petitioned the ABCMR that he be evaluated under the PDES and that he be medically discharged or retired by reason of physical disability.  On 13 June 2013, the petition was denied.
   
   i.  The applicant was serving on active duty when he began suffering from mental illness.  In a letter from the Division Psychiatrist during the applicant's deployment, Dr. M-----, who evaluated the applicant in August 2008 while he was facing court-martial charges, Dr. M----- concurred with the diagnosis given by captain (CPT) Mc------- on 23 July 2008 of Bipolar II disorder with a concern about the potential to change to Bipolar I in the near future.  Dr. M----- gave his own diagnosis after interviewing the applicant in Iraq, after he had begun a treatment regimen with Risperdal.  Dr. M----- supported a more severe, but very similar, diagnosis of Bipolar I disorder, Most Recent Episode Manic, with Psychotic Features.  His psychotic features partially improved while on Risperdal.
   
   j.  After the applicant was evacuated to Fort Hood, TX, Dr. M----- was in contact with his treating psychiatrist Major (MAJ) C-------.  Dr. M----- agreed with MAJ C's assessment that the applicant should be referred to an MEB.  Unfortunately, the convening authority in Iraq already approved the chapter 10 discharge before the MEB could be initiated.
   
   k.  The second letter submitted to the Board for consideration is from Dr. C-------, who treated the applicant at Fort Hood in December 2006 and again in 2008.  Dr. C------- first met the applicant in December 2006 when she diagnosed him with an acute stress disorder and major depression.  She stated that he had been hospitalized out of state for nine days prior to coming to her inpatient unit, after discovering his brother-in-law had killed himself by hanging.  Her original treatment plan included follow-up care, and she recommended the applicant not have access to weapons.  The applicant missed his appointments, however, due to preparation for deployment.  Shortly thereafter, he went AWOL and sought civilian treatment for his mental illness.
   
   l.  Dr. C------- stated the applicant struggled while he was deployed.  He saw combat stress and was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder on 23 July 2008, but was not started on any medications despite being described as psychotic and manic/hypomanic.  A few days later, he was faced with court-martial charges, and upon the advice of his attorney, he signed a request to seek discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A few short days later, Dr. M----- prescribed the applicant with medication for his mental illness.
   
   m.  The applicant returned to the care of Dr. C------- once he was evacuated to Fort Hood, TX, and was treated for psychosis.  Dr. C------- wrote that both she and Dr. M----- agreed the applicant should face a MEB instead of court-martial.  They felt his actions, although culpable under ordinary circumstances, occurred when the applicant was under obvious mental duress and was suffering from manic and psychotic symptoms.  Dr. C------- stated, "That his court-martial was dropped "without prejudice" upon his initial return and deployment to Mosul but then hastily reinstated despite being manic, psychotic and unmedicated, emphasizes that the applicant was actually court-martialed with prejudice; the chapter 10 wasn’t for him insomuch as it was for his command to dispose of a perceived "trouble maker."
   
   n.  Dr. C's concluding remarks are most enlightening for the Board.  She states, "Although he may have eventually ended up with Bipolar disorder, the applicant would not have necessarily gone AWOL nor been disrespectful had he been in his right mind.  I opine that with adequate military follow up and assessment in 2006, the applicant could have been better screened for potential vulnerabilities in theater.  The applicant also should not have been allowed to make major life decisions (e.g., court-martial, chapter 10) while acutely manic, psychotic and unmedicated."
   
   o.  The Board denied the applicant's petition for processing through the PDES due to the presumption that his request for chapter 10 discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial was voluntary and administratively correct.  We respectfully challenge the voluntariness of his actions in light of the two medical opinions submitted on his behalf which are of the opinion the applicant was in a manic, psychotic, and unmedicated state at the time he agreed to the chapter 10.  He clearly suffers from a disabling mental illness that occurred during his time on active duty.  We respectfully request that his medical file be reviewed and he be afforded the processing of the PDES as was recommended by his treating physician at the time, Dr. C-------.
   
   p.  The applicant is aware of his misconduct, and requests the Board view his actions in light of his untreated mental illness at the time of their occurrence.  There are clearly questions about his culpability in light of his diagnoses, which shed light on the propriety of his discharge.  It is not enough to say it was administratively correct when there is clearly a question of whether he understood the full nature of the proceedings he was facing in his psychotic state.   
 
3.  Counsel provides an eight-page brief and three letters. 


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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20120018599, on 13 June 2013.

2.  The applicant, with counsel, provides photographs, statements, and associated medical opinions which were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR.  Therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 December 2005.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 68W (Health Care Specialist).  He was subsequently assigned to Fort Hood, TX. 

4.  On 27 November 2006, while at home during the Thanksgiving Holiday, the applicant found his brother-in-law hanging in the garage after committing suicide.  On 7 December 2006, the applicant was subsequently admitted to a hospital in New York and diagnosed with PTSD and a personality disorder, NOS.  

5.  On 15 December 2006, the applicant was discharged from the hospital and he returned to Fort Hood, TX.  Evidence shows he was treated by MAJ C------- and he received a temporary profile on 21 December 2006 for an acute stress disorder and depression.  

6.  On 23 January 2007, he went AWOL and remained absent in desertion until he surrendered to his unit on 17 March 2008, approximately 14 months later.

7.  Court-martial charges had been preferred against the applicant for being AWOL.  An undated Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Memorandum for Record, Subject:  Withdrawal and Dismissal of Charges, indicates the charges against the applicant were withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice.

8.  He deployed to Iraq on 8 May 2008.  An SF 600, dated 23 July 2008, shows he was seen by a psychiatrist for bipolar II disorder.  The document indicates the injury and illness were not work or battle related, his mental disorder was a non-battle illness, and he was not taking medication.  The psychiatrist also indicated that the applicant's disorder did not eliminate his culpability for his actions prior to deployment or eliminate the appropriateness of disciplinary actions as determined by the chain of command. 
9.  On 23 July 2008, court-martial charges were preferred against him for being AWOL from 23 January 2007 to 17 March 2008 and for two occasions of being disrespectful in language and deportment toward a superior NCO.

10.  On 26 July 2008, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatric nurse practitioner at the Marez Combat Stress Control (CSC) Center.  The SF 600 contained in his records shows he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct and bipolar personality disorder.  It was noted the applicant had no psychiatric contraindications to any disciplinary or legal action deemed necessary by his parent command.  The applicant was to continue a trial of Seroquel for sleep and to start on Risperdal.

11.  On 30 July 2008, the psychiatric nurse practitioner concluded that the applicant had a "major mental illness that necessitates evacuation from theater."  He was aware the applicant was pending court-martial proceedings and noted that no determination had been made as to the applicant's competency to stand trial.  On 1 August 2008, the applicant's medication was adjusted by discontinuing Seroquel, starting Benadryl for agitation, and increasing his dose of Risperdal prior to sleep. 

12.  On 7 August 2008, his defense counsel requested that the applicant's request for a chapter 10 discharge in lieu of court-martial be approved in light of all the circumstances listed below:

   a.  The applicant faced charges for a 14-month AWOL and for showing disrespect to an E-5.
   
   b.  The applicant's significant mental health issues had affected his ability to make good decisions.  One traumatic experience in particular profoundly affected him: he discovered his brother-in-law's dead body after a hanging suicide.  After this discovery, the applicant sought mental health treatment.  He was an inpatient at North Shore Long Island Jewish-Zucker Hillside Mental Hospital in New York City.  He was also an inpatient at Darnall Hospital at Fort Hood.  Though he brought his mental health concerns to his former chain of command, he was often not allowed to attend important counseling sessions, and his request for a hardship discharge was not carefully considered.  When his problem grew worse, he went AWOL.  While AWOL, he continued to receive mental health treatment.
   
   c.  After returning to his unit on his own accord, the applicant deployed to Mosul.  Deployment had not improved his mental health.  On 30 July 2008, the Officer in Charge of the Forward Operating Base Marez Combat Stress Control Center concluded that the applicant had a "major mental illness that necessitates evacuation from theater."  He was presently under medication, Risperdal, for treatment of bipolar disorder.
   
   d.  A chapter 10 would punish the applicant, leaving him with the stigma of an other than honorable discharge, and send a message to other Soldiers that there are real consequences for Soldiers who go AWOL.  In addition, a chapter 10 would alleviate the need for a lengthy sanity board process and allow the applicant to return to the United States where he could secure the treatment he needed from his own doctors at no expense to the Army.

13.  On 7 August 2008, the applicant's counsel submitted a request for a sanity board and directed that the results only be provided to defense counsel.  The record is silent as to the outcome of his request.

14.  On 7 August 2008, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.

   a.  He acknowledged he understood that he could request discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial because the following charges, or lesser included violations, preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge:
   
* Charge I, Specification: AWOL
* Charge II, Specification 1: Disrespect
* Charge II, Specification 2: Disrespect

   b.  He acknowledged he was making the request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  He had been advised of the implications that were attached to his request.  By submitting his request for discharge, he acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offenses charged and that he was guilty of one or more of the charges against him, or of a lesser-included offense therein contained, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.
   
   c.  He acknowledged that he understood if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be discharged under other than honorable conditions.  Knowing this, and without placing any condition on this chapter 10 request, he respectfully requested the convening authority take his service record into consideration to approve a general under honorable conditions discharge.
   
   d.  He acknowledged he had been advised and understood the possible effect of a discharge under other than honorable conditions as well as a general discharge, under honorable conditions and that, as a result of the issuance of either discharge, he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the VA, and that he may be deprived of my rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State Law.  He also understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of being given an under other than honorable conditions discharge or general discharge.
   
   e.  He did not choose to submit a statement on his own behalf to accompany the request nor is there evidence that he requested a medical examination.  He acknowledged receipt of a copy of his request for discharge.
   
15.  On 22 August 2008, his request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial was approved by the appropriate authority.

16.  On 3 October 2008, he was given an under other than honorable conditions discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial after completing 1 year, 7 months, and 11 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows time lost under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 972, during the period 23 January 2007 through 16 March 2008 (422 days).  His DD Form 214 shows the entry "KFS" in item 26 (Separation Code) and the entry "4" in item 27        (RE Code).

17.  His record contains the document, Patient Release/Discharge Instructions, dated 26 September 2008, in which the provider noted the applicant was discontinued off Risperdal having been on 4mg without good response; however, by the time of discontinuance the applicant acknowledged that he had not been taking his medication well and had been using alcohol with it.  

18.  On 8 June 2009, the ADRB upgraded his under other than honorable conditions discharge to a general discharge and restored his rank/grade to specialist/E-4.  However, the ADRB determined that the reason for discharge, to include the RE code was both proper and equitable.

19.  The applicant petitioned the VA and on 11 May 2010, he received service connection for bipolar disorder with an evaluation of 50%, effective 4 October 2008.

20.  The applicant later requested the ABCMR upgrade his general discharge and change the separation authority, separation code, and RE code to enable him to enter the U.S. Army again.  On 3 July 2012, his request was denied.

21.  The applicant and/or his counsel provide:
   
   a.  Letters from the Division Psychiatrist and Inpatient Psychiatrist who attest to treating the applicant and attested that the applicant should have received an MEB and not a court-martial. 

   b.  Photographs of the applicant with North Shore LIJ Health Systems Chief Executive Officer and President.  The applicant states he was selected to join the President in the First Annual Military Memorial Luncheon.
   
   c.  A certificate from the 3rd U.S. Cavalry Association recognizing the applicant as a lifetime member of the 3rd U.S. Cavalry Association.
   
   d.  Photographs of his brother whom he supported to priesthood and officiated at the wedding of his sister and one of his brother concelebrating Mass with Cardinal Timothy Dolan.
   
   e.  Associated medical documentation from his aforementioned treatment records.

22.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10, in effect at the time, stated a Soldier who had committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for which under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial included a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, could submit a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Commanders would ensure that a Soldier was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense(s) charged, possible punishments, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  A medical examination is not required but may be requested by the Soldier under Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 8.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally appropriate for a Soldier who was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.

23.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It establishes the Army PDES according to the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, and Department of Defense Directive 1332.18.  It sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations.  The mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.

24.  Army Regulation 635-200, Section VI (Medical Processing), paragraph 1-33 (Disposition through medical channels) states in paragraph 1-33a that except for separation under chapter 10 and as provided in paragraph 1-33b, disposition through medical channels takes precedence over administrative separation processing.  

25.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service.  The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career.  The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service.  The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.  Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.

26.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  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 considers individual applications that are properly brought before it.  The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record; it is not an investigative body.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration of his previous request to be evaluated under the PDES and that he be medically discharged or retired by reason of physical disability has been carefully reexamined.


2.  The available evidence shows that after his brother-in-law committed suicide the applicant was subsequently admitted to a hospital in New York and diagnosed with PTSD and a personality disorder, NOS.  Upon his discharge from the hospital he returned to his unit at Fort Hood, TX, where he received treatment and a temporary profile for an acute stress disorder and depression.

3.  Counsel claims the applicant presented requests for mental assistance to his chain of command, sought a hardship discharge, and when things grew worse, he went AWOL.  Dr. C------- states the applicant missed appointments due to preparation for deployment and shortly thereafter went AWOL and sought civilian treatment for his mental illness.  However, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate anything other than his AWOL status and subsequent absence in desertion for approximately 14 months.

4.  Court-martial charges were subsequently withdrawn and dismissed without prejudice after the applicant voluntarily returned and volunteered to deploy.  Although lacking evidence, it is reasonable to presume a medical examination or review of the applicant's records determined he was fit to deploy to Iraq in May 2008.  On 23 July 2008, he received a diagnosis and treatment for bipolar II disorder.  The treating psychiatrist noted the applicant's disorder did not eliminate his culpability for his actions prior to deployment or eliminate the appropriateness of disciplinary actions as determined by his chain of command.  The same day court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 23 January 2007 to 17 March 2008 and for two occasions of being disrespectful toward a superior noncommissioned officer.

5.  The fact that the applicant suffered from mental health issues is not in question; however, the evidence of record shows the applicant was receiving treatment and he consulted with counsel prior to requesting discharge.  The record shows he was charged with the commission of offenses punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge.  Discharges under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He voluntarily, willingly, and in writing, requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  However, unlike most other administrative discharges, discharge under chapter 10 does not defer to processing through the PDES.  

6.  The evidence and arguments provided by the applicant and his counsel were carefully considered to include letters from psychiatrists who attest to treating the applicant and proclaim he should have received an MEB and not a court-martial as well as references to his character and post-service conduct.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to show he was not responsible for his acts of misconduct or that he should have been evaluated under the PDES and medically discharged or retired by reason of physical disability.  The evidence of record is insufficient to show the applicant was not properly discharged.  Therefore, he is not entitled to the 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120018599, dated 13 June 2013.




      _______ _  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)                                         AR20130012594





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130012594



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1