BOARD DATE:	  26 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130013956 


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 defers to counsel regarding his request.

2.  The applicant states in a "declaration" he deployed overseas several times and later transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) as an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) logistics officer in 2004.  He states he was selected for command five times, and he developed a reputation as an officer who could successfully "fix" a broken organization.  He lists several awards he received.

	a.  He outlines two situations of "many conflicts" between the 561st Readiness Support Group (RSG) Forward and himself regarding their management style and adherence to regulations.

	b.  He sought to attend the Theater Logistics Officer Course (TLOC) at Fort Lee, VA in August 2010.  He submitted his application in February 2010 to attend the course, which he states was "approved" by Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) S.  His career manager at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) also approved funding of the 4-month course.  The approval automatically generated a notification to his entire chain of command.  After the 561st RSG Forward returned in June 2010, he reminded LTC BB that he would be away for school.  In July, he submitted a leave request for 2 weeks of leave to prepare for attending the lengthy school that the command had approved and he submitted a leave-en-route request, which would cover the 4 days of travel to drive to Virginia from Nebraska, which the command also approved.

	c.  Accordingly, he was surprised when LTC BB contacted him later at the school, claiming he did not know where he was.  LTC BB later claimed that Colonel (COL) AD (now Brigadier General AD), then commander of the 561st RSG, was unaware that he was going to a course at Fort Lee and that, despite the approval of his application and leave forms by the unit, he was absent without leave (AWOL).  Through several emails and phone calls, he reminded LTC BB that he had previously informed him and insisted that he should be allowed to complete the school, so as not to waste the training seat that was paid for and occupied.  Over several phone calls he became more and more frustrated based on his perception that LTC BB did not own up to the fact that he and COL AD were fully aware of his school.  He expressed his willingness to return to Omaha.  But he had travelled to Virginia with approved funding; he requested that his unit issue orders terminating the school and returning him to Nebraska so it could not be claimed that he left the school without consent.  His course coordinator concurred with this action; however, his command refused to write an order and insisted that he return not only at his own expense, but also with no written official statement that cancelled him out of the seat he occupied in the class.  He decided to return to Omaha despite the fact that he did not receive a direct order from his commander.  Before leaving Fort Lee he filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint against the 561st RSG command based on what he perceived as the "retaliatory termination" of his school and the failure to provide travel orders.

	d.  Upon his return to the unit COL AD convened an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers (IO) and Boards of Officers) investigation into his attendance of TLOC.  Based on the investigation, a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) was entered into his permanent file, to which he submitted a rebuttal.  In addition to the GOMOR, he was subjected to inappropriate unofficial disciplinary measures.  In response to his treatment, he sought several avenues of redress including filing an IG complaint in August 2010.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests:

* set aside of the applicant's Board of Inquiry (BOI) findings, dated 23 May 2012
* removal of the GOMOR, dated 20 November 2010, from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF)
* removal of the AR 15-6 investigation findings, dated 10 September 2010 
* reinstatement of the applicant in an AGR status

2.  Counsel states the applicant requests that the Board correct his military record and direct his reinstatement because of unlawful command influence.  The applicant's record is in error because the GOMOR contained in his file is the product of an invalid AR 15-6 investigation, the Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) were conducted in a manner contrary to AR's, and the applicant's BOI proceedings were subject to apparent and actual unlawful command influence by COL AD to the extent that it invalidates the results of the proceedings.

3.  Counsel provides:

* Petition for Relief
* nineteen enclosures listed on the application
* BOI summarized record of proceedings and transcript summary extractions

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he was appointed as a second lieutenant in the USAR in 1996.  

2.  On 4 April 2004, he entered the AGR program in the rank of captain.

3.  On 1 July 2009, he was promoted to the rank/grade of major (MAJ)/O-4.

4.  A DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 12 February 2010, shows his rear detachment commander recommended approval of his request to attend TLOC with a course length of 4 months and 10 days beginning on 2 August 2010.  The available record is void of a document showing his request for attendance at TLOC was processed by his unit's higher headquarters, the 103d Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) (ESC). 

5.  A DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 9 August 2010, shows he was counseled by LTC BB for his actions and a lack of responsiveness to direct orders issued by his supervisor and the Commander of the 561st RSG, regarding his orders/Defense Travel System authorization for TLOC and returning to his proper duty station as directed by order of the commander.

6.  On 16 August 2010, the applicant's senior commander appointed an AR 15-6 IO to conduct an investigation of alleged improper conduct by the applicant in relation to the approval of and travel to and from TLOC at Fort Lee, VA in July and August 2010.  The IO was to use the informal procedures outlined in chapter 4 of AR 15-6.  At a minimum the investigation was to address:
   a.  The applicable HRC rules, regulations, policies, standing operating procedures (SOPs), and/or guidance concerning:

* travel authorization for AGR Soldiers
* career management and approval for attendance in residence at U.S. Army school courses for AGR Soldiers
* command approval authority for temporary duty (TDY) and travel for AGR Soldiers within their command

   b.  Oral and written communications between HRC representatives, the 561st RSG command, and the applicant.

7.  On 19 August 2010, the applicant received developmental counseling by LTC BB to discuss the applicant's passive approach to notifying him about appointments.  LTC BB described two occasions of the applicant's extended absence during the past week without what he considered proper notification.  LTC BB outlined on the counseling form what his expectations were regarding the applicant's work schedule and appointments.  He further informed the applicant that he was not authorized to decide for himself when he may excuse himself from his duty station.  The applicant marked the box on the form that he disagreed with the information provided by LTC BB.  On 22 August 2010, he provided a two-page statement related to the counseling. 

8.  On 10 September 2010, the AR 15-6 IO completed his findings and recommendations.  The IO stated:

* the applicant followed prescribed steps to attend TLOC
* at the time the DA Form 4187 request was presented for approval he knowingly held a permanent 3 profile which made him ineligible to attend TLOC until a board evaluated his physical ability to perform his duties in a worldwide field or austere environment
* the applicant traveled without authorized travel orders
* on 2 August 2010, he willfully violated a lawful verbal order of the commanding officer, COL AD, to report to work at the USAR Training Center, Elkhorn, NE on Monday morning at 0730 hours
* on 2 and 3 August 2010, he was AWOL
* he attempted to coerce orders from HRC in order to cover his attendance at TLOC
* he made misleading statements in an official communication to HRC
* on 4 August 2010, he again willfully violated a verbal lawful order of his supervisor to return to Omaha immediately
* on 5 August 2010, and again on 6 August 2010, he was approached by the TLOC Director and directed to contact his unit/supervisor to return to Omaha immediately
* on 9 August 2010, he again willfully violated a written lawful order of his supervisor to return to Omaha
* on 10 August 2010, he was informed by LTC AG that he was disenrolled from TLOC and directed to return home
* the applicant returned to military control on 13 August 2010 

9.  The IO recommended:

* a claim of improper conduct be substantiated
* charge(s) be brought against the applicant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for –

* being AWOL
* willfully disobeying a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer
* failure to obey an order
* false statements
* fraud against the U.S. Government

10.  The IO also recommended the applicant be evaluated for fitness for duty and potential for future service in the AGR program.

11.  On 20 November 2010, the Commanding General, 377th Theater Sustainment Command, Belle Chasse, LA, the applicant's senior commander, reprimanded the applicant for his unauthorized travel to Fort Lee, VA and his refusal to return to his duty station after having been given a lawful order from his supervisor.  His attempt to receive training knowing he was not authorized to attend had breached the special trust and confidence accorded to him as an officer in the USAR.  Furthermore, his blatant defiance of his chain of command through his refusal to return when ordered called into question his judgment and suitability to be a leader in the USAR.  His conduct was inexcusable under any circumstances and was a disgrace to the reputation of the USAR, his unit, and him.  The GOMOR was imposed as an administrative measure and not as non-judicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.  The applicant's senior commander stated he intended to file the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF unless he submitted statements or documents that provided a valid excuse for his conduct, or matters in extenuation and mitigation that convinced him that such filing was not warranted.

12.  On 31 January 2011, he submitted a rebuttal to the GOMOR, wherein he requested the GOMOR not be filed.  He stated the AR 15-6 investigation was not conducted in accordance with (IAW) AR 15-6, thus the resulting findings were invalid.  During the period of the investigation the IO was directly rated by COL AD, the Commander of the 561st RSG.  The IO could not be an impartial IO when one of the interested parties in the investigation, COL AD, was also in a position of authority and could control the direction and results of the findings.  He countered the IO's finding that he was not eligible to attend TLOC due to his medical profile.  He stated that the findings and recommendations presented by the IO were completely and totally false and based on a deliberate refusal to act IAW AR 15-6.  He further stated that the request for the course had been approved by the rear detachment commander in February 2010.

13.  His intermediate chain of command recommended the applicant's GOMOR be placed in his OMPF.  On 17 February 2011, Major General (MG) LV directed the applicant's GOMOR be placed in his OMPF for permanent filing.  The GOMOR is currently filed in his OMPF.

14.  During 2011, the applicant received two referred OERs.

   a.  The first was a change of rater OER for the period 8 July 2010 through 19 December 2010.  He was serving as a plans officer.  His rater was LTC BB and his senior rater was COL AD.  The applicant did not sign the OER.
   
   	(1)  In Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater) - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed an "X" in the "Unsatisfactory Performance Do Not Promote," block.
   
   	(2) In Part VIIa (Senior Rater - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Do Not Promote" block.  In Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in the Same Grade), the senior rater rated the applicant "Below Center of Mass – Do Not Retain."
   
   b.  The second referred OER was a relief for cause OER for the period 
20 December 2010 through 18 May 2011.  He was serving as a plans officer.  His rater was LTC JT and his senior rater was COL AD.  The applicant did not sign the OER.
   
   (1)  In Part Va (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater) - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed an "X" in the "Unsatisfactory Performance Do Not Promote" block.

   	(2) In Part VIIa (Senior Rater - Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Do Not Promote" block.  In Part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in the Same Grade), the senior rater rated the applicant "Below Center of Mass – Do Not Retain."

15.  On 24 October 2011, by memorandum, the applicant's senior commander notified the applicant that he was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of AR 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 4-2, due to substandard performance of duty; specific acts of misconduct, moral and professional dereliction of duty; and derogatory information filed against him.  He stated that his actions were based on the following specific reasons for elimination:

	a.  Substantiated proof of substandard duty performance.
   
        (1) The applicant consistently demonstrated a downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency and a consistent record of mediocre service.  Additionally, he failed to exercise necessary leadership of an officer of his grade.  On 19 August 2010, LTC BB counseled him regarding his ''passive approach" to providing notification about appointments, thus missing multiple days of duty, and he had not improved his duty performance as evidenced on his 11 February 2011 counseling form initiated by LTC BB. 

        (2) He failed to properly perform assignments commensurate with an officer of his grade and experience.  On 13 January 2011, LTC BB counseled him on his overall failure to perform his job, including missed suspenses and concern about numerous forthcoming suspenses. 
   
        (3) His inability or unwillingness to expend effort toward duty assignments had also been shown.  Between 5 January and 9 February 2011, various suspenses had passed with no information sent out by him.

   b.  Substantiated acts of misconduct, moral and professional dereliction of duty which potentially constituted violations under the UCMJ.
   
   (1)  He was AWOL from 3 August to 12 August 2010. 
   
      (2) He willfully disobeyed a commissioned officer by failing to return to his place of duty after being ordered to do so by the Commander, 561st RSG.
      
      (3) He attempted to obtain orders from HRC to cover his attendance at TLOC by making misleading statements in an official communication to HRC.

      (4) His blatant defiance of his chain of command through his refusal to return when ordered by the Deputy Commander, 561st RSG, called into question his judgment and suitability to be a leader in the USAR and resulted in a GOMOR.  His conduct was cited as "inexcusable under any circumstances and was a disgrace to the reputation of the USAR, his unit, and him."

      (5) On 8 February 2011, he communicated a threat against members of the 561st RSG when he wrote in an Equal Opportunity complaint, "The harassment and bullying by the 561st RSG must stop immediately before somebody dies!"

        (6) Conduct unbecoming an officer as indicated by the above-referenced GOMOR.

   c.  Substantiated proof of derogatory information filed in his OMPF.  He was reprimanded for his misconduct and moral and professional dereliction which resulted in a GOMOR, which was filed in his OMPF on 17 February 2011.

16.  On 28 and 29 April 2012, a BOI was convened to determine whether the applicant should be retained in the Army.  During the board examination he stated the DA Form 4187 (application to attend the TLOC) did not include Part 2 that went through the 103rd ESC for their approval.  He emailed the form directly to HRC, and did not know if it actually went through to the 103rd ESC.

   a.  The BOI found that he displayed substandard duty performance IAW AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a, in that he failed to:

* exercise necessary leadership the command expected of an officer of his grade
* properly perform assignments commensurate with his grade and experience

   b.  The board also found that he did commit acts of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, IAW AR 600-8-24, in that he:

* was AWOL from 3 to 12 August 2010
* willfully disobeyed a commissioned officer on 29 July 2010, by failing to return to his place of duty after being ordered to do so by COL AD
* made misleading statements in an official communication to HRC, on or about 3 August 2010
* defied his chain of command by refusing to return to his place of duty on 2 and 3 August 2010, after being ordered to do so by the Deputy Commander, 561st RSG
* displayed conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated in the GOMOR, dated 20 November 2011

   c.  The board found that he did have adverse information filed in his OMPF IAW AR 600-37, specifically the GOMOR dated 20 November 2011.  This derogatory information combined with other known deficiencies formed a pattern that, when reviewed in conjunction with the officer's overall record, required elimination IAW AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2c.

	d.  The board recommendations were that he be separated from the military with an honorable discharge.

17.  On 18 July 2012, the applicant provided a rebuttal memorandum to the BOI.  He gave multiple reasons why the BOI was not conducted IAW AR's and he also indicated there was a "toxic" leadership environment at the 561st RSG, and that the toxic leaders engaged in actions that ultimately led to the BOI.  He indicated two voting board members should have been replaced, his witnesses were not provided the opportunity to appear in person (rather they were required to respond to board questioning per telephone), that COL AD attempted to intimidate his party as they entered the courthouse, that the AR 15-6 investigation was not conducted IAW regulatory policy, and that the 561st RSG engaged in deliberate bullying and harassment in an attempt to cause him to transfer after his return from TLOC.

18.  On 6 September 2012, the Commanding General, 377th Theater Sustainment Command, ratified the appointment of a BOI memorandum for the applicant, dated 23 January 2012.  He stated that after reviewing the board's findings and recommendations, as well as the legal review, he concurred with and therefore approved the board's findings and recommendations.  He further recommended the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army and receive a characterization of service of honorable.

19.  On 27 February 2013, the Army Board of Review for Eliminations (ABRE) convened to review the action of the BOI which recommended elimination of the applicant.  The ABRE, having reviewed the records of the case in closed session and by secret ballot, found the Government had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant:

* displayed substandard duty performance IAW AR 600-8-24, paragraph 
4-2a, in that he failed to exercise necessary leadership or command expected of an officer of his grade and properly perform assignments commensurate with his grade and experience
* committed acts of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction IAW AR 600-8-24, in that he:

* was AWOL from 3 to 12 August 2010
* willfully disobeyed a superior commissioned officer on 29 July 2010, by failing to return to his place of duty after being ordered to do so
* made misleading statements in an official communication to HRC, on or about 3 August 2010
* defied his chain of command by refusing to return to his place of duty on 2 and 3 August 2010, after being ordered to do so
* displayed conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated in the GOMOR, dated 20 November 2011
* had adverse information filed in his OMPF IAW AR 600-37, which combined with other known deficiencies formed a pattern that, when reviewed in conjunction with the applicant's overall record, required elimination IAW AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2c

20.  The ABRE recommended the applicant be eliminated from the U.S. Army with an honorable characterization of service.

21.  On 7 March 2013, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) approved the ABRE's recommendations to involuntarily eliminate the applicant from the Army based on misconduct and moral and professional dereliction (AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b), derogatory information (AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2c), and substandard performance of duty (AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a) with an honorable characterization of service.  On 28 March 2013, he was discharged accordingly.

22.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, by reason of unacceptable conduct, in the rank/grade of MAJ/O-4 with an honorable characterization of service.  He completed 8 years, 11 months, and 25 days of net active service this period.  He had 2 years and 25 days of prior active service and 7 years, 10 months, 3 days of prior inactive service.

23.  His counsel also provided the following additional information as a "summary of facts."

   a.  On 24 October 2011, the applicant was notified of his proposed elimination.  Pursuant to his rights, he elected an appearance before a BOI, in lieu of retirement or resignation, in order to present the facts of the situation.  Because of the nature of the USAR, where Soldiers are often part-time and live in various locations, counsel agreed to conduct voir dire (competency examination) of the members by written questionnaire and dispose of challenges prior to travel so as not to unduly disrupt the proceedings.  Presumably, this was with COL AD's concurrence, as pursuant to AR 600-8-24, COL AD had the authority to both determine whether to grant continuance and a challenge to a member.  Additionally, COL AD, as the General Officer Show Cause Authority (GOSCA), exercised his authority concerning witnesses to approve the travel and lodging for witnesses who were located outside of the local area as well as for travel of all the government's requested witnesses.  COL AD, however, declined to provide funds for any of the witnesses requested by the applicant so that they could travel to attend the board proceedings.  The applicant's witnesses thereafter testified by telephone rather than in person.
   
   	(1) The board proceedings concluded with the board recommending the applicant's involuntary elimination from the Army based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction, derogatory information, and substandard performance of duty, with an "Honorable" characterization of service.  
   
   	(2) The applicant submitted a letter objecting to the failure to provide his witnesses and other irregularities.  The applicant's counsel submitted a letter of deficiencies on 16 July 2012, wherein he maintained his objection to the composition of the board in light of COL AD's testimony as improper command influence.

   b.  The ABRE reviewed the applicant's elimination on 27 February 2013 and sustained his elimination without addressing the errors submitted by counsel or the applicant.
   
   c.  His counsel stated the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) has previously found reinstatement to active duty in appropriate cases where the Board of Review (BOR) was held to be invalid.  He refers to Docket Number AR20100023383 where the Board found that the BOR's failure to follow the established proceedings was a violation of due process, and the appropriate remedy for the violation was to reinstate the applicant to active duty and provide credit for the dates of service since discharge.  (The basis for the Board's action was that the BOR failed to have the proper board composition in that the board members were not senior to the applicant in the case.)
   
24.  During the processing of this case, the USAR Command Staff Judge Advocate, Chief, Administrative and Civil Law, provided an advisory opinion dated 7 November 2013.  The advisory official stated that there were no errors or injustices in the records of the applicant which led to his dismissal from the USAR with an honorable discharge.  The official stated the BOI should not be removed as there was no evidence that it was subject to unlawful command influence.  The AR 15-6 investigation should not be removed as it was conducted IAW AR 15-6 guidelines.  Accordingly, the resulting GOMOR should not be removed as it was not based on an erroneous 15-6 investigation.  Finally, there was sufficient evidence to support dismissal of the applicant; therefore, he should not be reinstated to active duty.  In support of the above findings the advisory official outlined the facts surrounding the applicant's actions leading to his eventual discharge from the USAR.  This included the GOMOR, BOI, law, and discussion of the above.

25.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for information and to allow him the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  On 27 December 2013, through his counsel, he provided the following rebuttal information.

	a.  Though the advisory opinion states, "Applicant does not appear to dispute the facts relating to his travel that are included in the findings of the AR 15-6 or the BOI," he does dispute the facts as laid out in his petition for relief.  He, however, recognizes that the Board determination rests on whether an error or injustice occurred during his investigation, GOMOR, and BOI, not the validity of the allegations.  Accordingly, his petition for relief primarily reflects these errors and injustice in his proceedings.  He continues to maintain that the AR 15-6 investigation and BOI findings were not supported by facts, but rather their findings reflect the unlawful command influence of COL AD.  The advisory opinion on this, and related issues, is erroneous in multiple respects. 

	b.  The advisory opinion misstates the applicant's objections to the AR 15-6 investigation and erroneously concludes that he provided no evidence to support that bias existed during the investigation.

The advisory opinion states the applicant's objections to the AR 15-6 are without merit.  LTC JF, the IO, was senior in rank to the applicant, the subject of the investigation.  The applicant provided no evidence to show that the IO was biased simply because he was in the rating chain of the appointing authority.  Most AR 15-6 IOs are appointed by their commanders who are likely in their rating chain.  An IO is expected to provide an unbiased report.  Without evidence supporting his claim of bias, the presumption is that the IO complied with AR 15-6 in conducting his investigation.  The applicant raised this issue in rebuttal to the GOMOR issued by MG V.  His conclusory argument that the IO "was not in the position to neutrally question or evaluate their actions" is not supported by the evidence provided by the applicant.  He objected to the investigation because of the IO's rank and relationship with the key witnesses, COL AD, LTC BB, and Ms. RS of the 561st RSG, and that LTC JF was not in the position to neutrally question or evaluate their actions in regard to the allegations and whether the applicant was AWOL or failed to obey an order.  The applicant's objection to the investigation is based on LTC JF's likeliness to weigh COL AD, LTC BB, and Ms. RS's statements as more credible than other witness statements, including the applicant's, because of LTC JF's continued relationship with the witnesses.  This bias affected his ability to weigh the evidence impartially and skewed his perspective on the case.

	c.  In reviewing the IO's potential bias, the standard of review is not whether the applicant proved that the alleged bias affected the outcome of the investigation or the BOI, as the opinion suggests, but whether "a member of the public would have reason to doubt the legitimacy of military justice proceedings" (U.S. v. Napoleon).  Under this standard, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has upheld that a reasonable member of the public would have significant concern about the impartiality upon learning that the IO had a pre-existing friendship with the applicant's primary accusers.  In U.S. v. Napoleon the court held in an unpublished opinion that the military judge erred in failing to dismiss a panel member when the member was friends with the commanding officer whose orders the accused was alleged to have violated for implied bias.  LTC JF's bias appears upon a closer examination of the facts.  LTC JF missed the inconsistencies between COL AD, LTC BB, and Ms. RS's statements and accepted their statements as undisputed facts.  COL AD made several conflicting statements about the dates and facts that were contradicted by testimony of both Ms. RS and LTC BB.  These inconsistencies were more clearly revealed at the applicant's BOI.  LTC BB testified that he had informed COL AD of the applicant's attendance of the course in July and thereafter he did not inform the applicant that COL AD had disapproved his attendance.  LTC BB and COL AD even contradict their own stories within each of their separate sworn statements during the BOI.  Based on the testimony of these witnesses, it can reasonably be concluded that the applicant was authorized to attend the TLOC and that the applicant was not directed to return immediately by LTC BB, whether or not he was acting at COL AD's direction as the obviously contradictory statements of the three alleged.  Further, because the applicant did not involve the IG until later, and the school's administrative instructor directed him to keep attending the course, it can be reasonably concluded that the "order" for him to return to the unit was not given until he had already attended the class for several days, raising doubt as to the applicant's timely compliance.  LTC JF found that "the applicant followed the prescribed steps to attend the TLOC at Fort Lee, VA per HRC guidelines," but then did not question why he was not issued any travel orders for his return.  LTC JF should have concluded that the school was the applicant's place of duty based on the approved documentation for his attendance.  Without travel orders by the unit or the school to return to Nebraska, the validity of his attendance is further evidenced by the fact that the Army Requirements and Resource System showed him as present at the course during his alleged AWOL.  The applicant's command requiring him to return to his unit, without an official order, raises doubts as to the validity of his AWOL status.  LTC JF failed to discover these inconsistencies because his bias affected his ability to impartially consider COL AD, LTC BB, and Ms. RS's statements.  Accordingly, LTC JF should have been dismissed as the IO and the convening authority should have appointed a neutral IO.  Therefore, the subsequent GOMOR, which was based on the investigation, was also wrong.

	d.  Although the advisory opinion recognizes the applicant's objection is based on unlawful command influence (COL AD's participation in the BOI proceedings), the advisory opinion erroneously analyzes the applicant's objection in terms of whether there is evidence of bias in the board member's actions rather than undue command influence by COL AD.  The applicant's objection is specifically that COL AD's actions gave the appearance of unlawful command influence.  In N.G. v. U.S. the court found that while unlawful command influence is "generally applied to military judicial proceedings, such as a court-martial, this principle also is applied to administrative hearings."  Where the appearance of unlawful command influence exists, there is no requirement to show that the influence actually impacted the board members or panel.  In the same case the court found "command influence may be found to exist if a reasonable citizen, knowing all of the facts of a given case, would believe the military justice system to be unfair and, as such, lose confidence in the entire system."

	e.  As explained in more detail in the applicant's petition, once he presents "some evidence" of unlawful command influence (U.S. v. Harvey), then the burden is on "the Government to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that unlawful command influence was either absent from or otherwise did not taint the proceedings (U.S. v. Stoneman).  By requiring him to show prejudice in conjunction with an allegation of unlawful command influence, the advisory opinion erroneously shifts the burden of proof to the applicant.  The advisory opinion does not cite evidence that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that COL AD's unlawful command influence had no prejudice at the applicant's BOI proceedings.  Instead, the advisory opinion relies on the fact that COL AD did not rule on the applicant's challenges to the two members of the board prior to the convening of the board as demonstrating that there was no evidence of prejudice.

	f.  Unlawful command influence is not, however, negated by the fact that a neutral military judge or board president rules on challenges or objections (U.S. v. Harvey).  In Harvey, the military judge offered to either give a limiting instruction to the panel members or to voir dire the panel members to determine if there had been any impact on them by the former convening authority's presence in the courtroom.  Despite the fact that the defense declined both the limiting instruction and the opportunity to voir dire the panel, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found undue command influence.  The court's ruling was grounded on the premise that the government must demonstrate during the proceedings that unlawful command influence had not tainted the process and the military judge and trial counsel's failure to elicit evidence demanded that the conviction be overturned.  It should be noted in particular that in making this ruling the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces discounted the defense's arguments that the convening authority's presence had a particular impact on the president of the panel, who was in the same chain of command as the convening authority.  It follows that in the applicant's case, the president's offer of additional voir dire likewise does not dispel the taint of unlawful command influence raised by COL AD's presence.

   g.  The applicant's objections to the investigation proceedings, the GOMOR, and BOI do not diminish his case or negate his right to a new review by the Board.  As grounds for advising the Board to deny his petition, the advisory official states, "[Applicant] has raised these issues on numerous occasions.  They have been thoroughly reviewed and considered by members of the command and their legal counsel who found no errors or substantial prejudice to the applicant."  The applicant's prior appeals and objections cannot be grounds for denying his claims: "The ABCMR will not consider an application until the applicant has exhausted all administrative remedies to correct the error or injustice" (AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records)).  The Board requires him to seek all other remedies prior to petitioning the board for the correction of his military record.  The fact that he previously objected to the AR 15-6 investigation, appealed his GOMOR, and objected to the BOI board members and proceedings cannot discredit his claims to the Board.  If, as the advisory official suggests, prior appeal results created a sufficient remedy for all claims, then almost all service members requesting relief from the Board would have no basis for relief.  Additionally, contrary to the SJA's assertions, the evidence does not support that all of the applicant's "raised issues of errors or substantial prejudice" were "thoroughly reviewed" and that his current claims bring "no new evidence."  First, as stated in his petition, the ABRE reviewed his elimination on 27 February 2013 and sustained his elimination.  Despite counsel's and his objections, the recorder inexplicably represented to the ABRE that "(T)he case appears to have been processed regularly and I am aware of no legal problems."  The recorder's representation raises the distinct possibility that the objections by counsel and the applicant were not forwarded to the ABRE for consideration and that the ABRE was not aware of his objections when they decided to uphold his elimination.  Second, following the applicant's initial objections to the AR 15-6 investigation, new evidence, in the form of COL AD's and LTC BB's testimony during the BOI, demonstrated that LTC JF failed to discover inconsistencies in COL AD's and LTC BB's recollection of the events and/or to adequately consider that the alleged violations were a product of miscommunication rather than deliberate misconduct by the applicant, or that their actions against him were deliberate misconduct by COL AD and/or LTC BB.  This evidence was not as clear when the applicant initially objected to the investigation and supports his assertions that LTC JF was biased during the investigation.

   h.  The advisory opinion misstates that the applicant was not qualified to attend TLOC at Fort Lee, VA.  The advisory opinion mistakenly relies on LTC JF's conclusion that he was not eligible to attend TLOC due to his medical profile status.  The regulation makes no statement that forbids or makes an AGR Soldier ineligible for training due to having a "3" profile.  Accordingly, he was qualified to attend TLOC.

   i.  The advisory opinion inaccurately states the investigation was done IAW AR's.  It is well-established in the military as well as civilian law that a government agency is required to "abide by its own rules and regulations where the underlying purpose of such regulations are the protection of personal liberties or interests" (U.S. v. Russo citing American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Service, U.S. ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, U.S. v. White).  The AR 15-6 investigation was not done IAW ARs. The investigation failed to follow either informal or formal procedures as required by AR 15-6, which states, "An administrative fact-finding procedure under this regulation may be designated ... informal (chap 4) or formal (chap 5)."  In a formal procedure "the appointing authority may designate one or more persons as respondents in the investigation."  In an informal investigation, however, "respondents may not be designated."  In the applicant's case, the appointing memorandum stated, "You are to conduct this investigation using the informal procedures outlined in
AR 15-6, chapter (4)."  Despite the appointing memorandum stating the investigation was to follow informal procedures, the memorandum went on to include formal procedures as well.  Specifically the appointing memorandum delineated the applicant as a suspect (see paragraph 1 requiring the investigation "of alleged improper conduct by the applicant") and required LTC JF to swear in all primary witnesses (see paragraph 2 "all primary witnesses to key events will be sworn using DA Form 2823").  The language of the appointment memorandum resulted in confusion regarding the procedures to follow and in LTC JF not conducting the investigation using either informal or formal procedures.  First, the convening authority's decision to name the applicant as a respondent for the investigation is a formal investigation procedure and specifically prohibited by AR 15-6, paragraph 1-8, which states "Respondents may not be designated in informal proceedings."  Second, the instruction to use the DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement) to swear in witnesses is contrary to informal procedures.  Though AR 15-6 does not prohibit the use of the 
DA Form 2823 to swear witnesses, LTC JF did not use the form as directed to swear in the applicant when LTC JF took his statement.  Nor did LTC JF read the applicant his Article 31B rights prior to speaking with him, as required when the appointment memorandum designates a respondent.  Though the applicant began filling out the DA Form 3881 (Rights Warning) he never signed the form or selected his choice concerning his rights, as required prior to speaking with a respondent pursuant to AR 15-6.  LTC JF's failure to abide by AR 15-6 when conducting the investigation into the applicant's alleged conduct rendered the investigation contrary to law.

   j.  In conclusion, when he left for TLOC he believed he had orders to attend the course and that he was medically qualified to attend the course.  He does not dispute that at some point after he departed COL AD said he wanted him to return and that he returned to his unit at his own expense and without orders.  What is in dispute is if or when COL AD ordered his return and his medical status at the time.  He does not dispute that an investigation into the actions of the parties was required; however, he does dispute whether the AR 15-6 investigation was conducted according to regulation and that COL AD's involvement tainted the outcome of the investigation.  This taint carried over to the applicant's GOMOR and required him to show cause for retention.  COL AD's involvement in the applicant's AR 15-6 and BOI constitutes unlawful command influence.  The law governing unlawful command influence is clear.  If the mere appearance of command influence exists, then the burden is on the Government to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that unlawful command influence was either absent from or otherwise did not taint the proceedings (N.G. v. U.S. and U.S. v. Stoneman).  The government presented no evidence demonstrating that COL AD's involvement did not taint the applicant's BOI or AR 15-6 investigation beyond a reasonable doubt.  Without that high level of evidence, the Board must correct the applicant's military record by removing his AR 15-6 investigation, subsequent GOMOR, and his BOI.  The applicant and his family believe in justice and they still desire to serve our Country, the Army, Soldiers, and their families.

26.  AR 15-6 establishes procedures for investigations and BOIs not specifically authorized by any other directive.  The appointing authority will also seek legal review of all cases involving serious or complex matters, such as where the incident being investigated has resulted in death or serious bodily injury, or where the findings and recommendations may result in adverse administrative action, or will be relied upon in actions by higher headquarters. 

	a.  Paragraph 3-10a states that an investigation finding is a clear and concise statement of a fact that can be readily deduced from evidence in the record.  It is directly established by evidence in the record or is a conclusion of fact by the IO or board.  Negative findings (for example, that the evidence does not establish a fact) are often appropriate.  The IO or board will normally not exceed the scope of findings indicated by the appointing authority.  The findings will be necessary and sufficient to support each recommendation.

	b.  Paragraph 3-14 states that a formal report will be used if a verbatim record of the proceedings was directed.  The transcript of those proceedings, with a completed DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by IO/Board of Officers) as an enclosure, and other enclosures, and exhibits, will constitute the report. 

	c.  In an informal investigation or board, the report will be written unless the appointing authority has authorized an oral report.  Every report, oral or written, will include findings, and unless the instructions of the appointing authority indicate otherwise, recommendations.

27.  AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the Evaluation Reporting System.  Paragraph 6-11 states, in pertinent part, that evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the Soldier’s official record are presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation.  To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence establishing clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or 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.  The burden of proof rests with the appellant.

28.  AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) provides that administrative letters of reprimand may be issued by an individual's commander, by superiors in the chain of command, and by any general officer, or officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the Soldier.  Letters of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF upon the order of a general officer level authority and are to be filed in the performance section.  The direction for filing is to be contained in an endorsement or addendum to the letter.  If the reprimand is to be filed in the OMPF then the recipient's submissions are to be attached.  Once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.  

29.  AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF.  Documents will be placed in the performance or restricted sections as they are received by the custodian.  Documents filed are those that must be permanently kept to record a Soldier’s military service, manage a Soldier’s career, and/or protect the interests of both the Soldier and the Army.  Administrative letters of reprimand, referral correspondence, rebuttal, and allied documents are filed in the performance section and Department of the Army directed elimination actions are filed in the restricted section.

30.  AR 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of officer personnel.  Chapter 4 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, in the interests of national security, or based on derogatory information (includes relief for cause OER and adverse information filed in the OMPF IAW AR 600-37).

31.  AR 600-8-24 further states the BOI’s purpose is to give the officer a fair and impartial hearing determining if the officer will be retained in the Army.  

   a.  Through an administrative investigation conducted under AR 15-6 and this regulation, the BOI establishes and records the facts of the respondent’s alleged misconduct, substandard performance of duty, or conduct incompatible with military service.  Based upon the findings of fact established by its investigation and recorded in its report, the board then makes a recommendation for the officer’s disposition, consistent with this regulation.  The Government is responsible to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the officer has failed to maintain the standards desired for their grade and branch or that the officer’s secret-level security clearance has been permanently denied or revoked by appropriate authorities.  In the absence of such a showing by the Government, the board will retain the officer.  The respondent is entitled to produce evidence to show cause for his retention and to refute the allegations against him. The respondent’s complete OMPF will be entered in evidence by the Government and considered by the BOI.  BOIs are appointed by the appropriate "GOSCA."
	b.  Paragraph 4-7 states boards will consist of at least three voting members and a recorder, legal advisor, and respondent’s counsel without vote.  The president of the BOI will be the grade of COL or above and senior in grade to the respondent.  Other voting members will be Regular Army officers on active duty (unless the respondent is an RC officer) in the grade of LTC or above and senior in grade and rank to the respondent.  When the respondent is an RC officer, one or more of the voting members will be an RC officer, preferably the same component. 

	c.  Paragraph 4-13 states that to the maximum extent possible the respondent has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her.

		(1) The personal appearance of witnesses should be obtained whenever practicable in preference to the use of depositions, affidavits, or written statements.  Accordingly, such requests will be honored by the board if the requested witness is considered reasonably available and testimony will add materially to the case.  Requests for witnesses will include a statement specifying the substance of expected testimony.

		(2) The president of the BOI will request the commander or Government agency to order witnesses to appear as witnesses for the Government who are members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees of the Government.  The availability of the witness is determined by the appropriate commander.  If the commander determines that a requested witness is not reasonably available, the reasons will be furnished to the president of the board, who will have this determination appended to the record of proceedings.

		(3) Military members and civilian employees of the Army called as witnesses on behalf of the Government and required to travel are entitled to a TDY allowance as prescribed in the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR) and Defense Finance and Accounting Service – Indiana Regulation 37-1, chapter 10.  Other witnesses requested by the respondent will not be reimbursed for expenses relating to their appearance unless they qualify for invitational travel orders under JFTR.

   d.  Paragraph 4-17 (Board of Review) of AR 600-8-24 states an officer recommended for elimination by a BOI will have his or her case referred to a BOR.  The BOR is appointed by the Secretary of the Army or his designee and has the same board composition as the BOI (the president of the BOR will be the grade of COL or above and senior in grade to the respondent).  Other voting members will be Regular Army officers on active duty (unless the respondent is an RC officer) in the grade of LTC or above and senior in grade and rank to the respondent.  When the respondent is an RC officer, one or more of the voting members will be an RC officer, preferably the same component.  The BOR, after thorough review of the records of the case, will make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army or his designee as to whether the officer should be retained in the Army.  When the BOR recommends a member's elimination from the Army, to include type of discharge and characterization, if applicable, the recommendation will be transmitted to the Secretary of the Army or his designee, who makes the final decision.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends through counsel that the AR 15-6 investigation findings should be removed from his record because they are invalid, his GOMOR should be removed from his OMPF because it was the product of an invalid AR 15-6 investigation, his BOI findings should be set aside due to apparent and actual unlawful command influence by COL AD to the extent that it invalidated the results of the proceedings, and the applicant should be reinstated to an AGR status because of the invalidity of the above.  However, there is no evidence of errors or injustices in the records of the applicant which led to his dismissal from the USAR with an honorable discharge.

2.  He contends that the AR 15-6 investigation was not conducted IAW AR 15-6, thus the resulting findings were invalid.  He further contends the IO could not be an impartial IO and the findings and recommendations presented by the IO were completely and totally false, based on a deliberate refusal to act IAW AR 15-6.  His contentions are noted; however, there is no evidence that any procedural inconsistencies (formal vs. informal) in the investigation caused the applicant any harm or otherwise invalidated the investigation.  There is no evidence of IO bias.  Evidence supports the findings and recommendations of the IO.  Accordingly, there is no basis for removing the AR 15-6 investigation from his OMPF. 

3.  Based on the findings of the AR 15-6 investigation, the applicant's senior commander issued the applicant a GOMOR.  The GOMOR was properly administered in accordance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in the performance section of his OMPF.  There is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The evidence considered by the IO and the GOMOR imposing authority sufficiently established by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant travelled to Fort Lee, VA without authorization, refused to return to his duty station after having been given a lawful order from his supervisor, and attempted to receive training knowing he was not authorized to attend.  Therefore, the resulting GOMOR should not be removed from his OMPF as it was not based on an invalid 15-6 investigation.


4.  Counsel also contends the applicant's referred OERs completed in 2011 were conducted in a manner contrary to AR's.  However, there is no available evidence showing that the two referred OERs were inaccurate, unjust, or otherwise flawed.

5.  A BOI was convened to determine whether the applicant should be retained in the Army.  The applicant and his counsel appeared before the board and presented evidence.  The BOI found the applicant displayed substandard duty performance IAW AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2a.  The board also found that he committed acts of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, in that he was AWOL, willfully disobeyed a superior commissioned officer by failing to return to his place of duty after being ordered to do so, made misleading statements in an official communication to HRC, and displayed conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated in the GOMOR.  The board also found that he had adverse information filed in his OMPF IAW AR 600-37, specifically the GOMOR, dated 20 November 2011.  The BOI recommended his discharge from the USAR with an honorable discharge.  The BOI was properly conducted in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  

6.  The applicant provided a rebuttal to the BOI giving multiple reasons why the BOI was not conducted IAW AR's.  He also indicated that "toxic" leaders at the 561st RSG engaged in actions that ultimately led to the BOI.  He indicated two voting board members should have been replaced, his witnesses were not provided the opportunity to appear in person, that COL AD attempted to intimidate his party as they entered the courthouse, and that the AR 15-6 investigation was not conducted IAW regulatory policy.

7.  After reviewing the BOI's findings and recommendations and the legal review, the Commanding General, 377th Theater Sustainment Command, concurred with and approved the board's findings and recommendations and recommended the applicant be separated from the U.S. Army with a characterization of service of honorable.  There is no evidence that the BOI was not conducted IAW regulatory policy or that it was subject to unlawful command influence; therefore, there is no basis for removing the BOI from his records.

8.  The ABRE convened to review the action of the BOI.  The ABRE reviewed the records of the case (including objections by counsel and the applicant) and found no legal error and that the Government had established by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant had displayed substandard duty performance, he had committed acts of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and had adverse information filed in his OMPF, which combined with other known deficiencies formed a pattern that, when reviewed in conjunction with the applicant's overall record, required elimination.  The ABRE recommended the applicant be eliminated from the U.S. Army with an honorable characterization of service.

9.  Counsel’s arguments throughout are without merit.  His theory of unlawful command influence is not in accord with the cited case law and would, in fact, eviscerate a commander’s authority to investigate and act across a broad swath of matters running to the very heart of good order, discipline, and unit cohesion.  Counsel essentially declares that those subordinate to a given commander must be presumed to be incapable of acting honestly and with personal courage in the performance of their duties, simply because they fall under a commander.  The very hierarchical structure of command must of necessity create individuals who are subject to command authority and influence.  Counsel’s “reasonable person” would reject the structure itself.  Any offense against a commander’s authority would require referral to another command for investigation and action.  Counsel has submitted nothing but the existence of command/superior/subordinate relationships to argue both the perception and actuality of unlawful command influence.  

10.  As a matter of fact, COL AD was applicant’s commander.  But, COL AD did not appoint the AR 15-6 IO.  He did not administer the GOMOR.  He was not the "GOSCA" and neither directed the BOI nor approved its recommendations.  None of those actions are procedurally defective or tainted by unlawful command influence.  As a matter of fact, the applicant, among other things, willfully disobeyed COL AD’s order to curtail his planned travel to Fort Lee and return to the unit.  Although the number of Soldiers who have had planned TDYs cancelled on short notice due to changes in mission requirements is legion, the applicant inexplicably chose to try to force his attendance at TLOC rather than simply obey and wait for another opportunity.  

11.  The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant was contacted before noon on the first day of his travel by SFC JE and informed that COL AD had ordered his return.  According to the applicant himself, he was in Indiana and still hundreds of miles from Fort Lee when this call came in.  LTC BB contacted the applicant the first duty day of class and informed him that COL AD had ordered him to return because he considered his presence in the command necessary given the recent re-deployment of the unit.  LTC BB continued to contact the applicant in the following days and order him to return.  LTC AG, the course administrator, repeatedly told the applicant to return to his unit.  It took the applicant more than a week to even begin to return and he only did so when LTC AG informed him he was dropped from the class and needed to turn in his school issue.

12.  Prior to returning to his unit the applicant dodged telephone calls and tried to get HRC to cut him orders under false pretenses (and despite the fact that unit permission is required in order to attend nearly all Army schools regardless of the funding source).  After his return to the unit, he argued that an SFC could not give an order to a major and that previously COL AD had told him not to call him so he could not call COL AD directly and verify the order.  He therefore had no choice but to rely on the seven-month old approval of his attendance at TLOC (signed off on by a previous rear detachment commander and never processed further) and he continued to the course.  

13.  The applicant’s course of misconduct, particularly with respect to TLOC attendance and the AWOL issue, were easily provable and was proven at every juncture.  The applicant’s complaints and objections were noted and addressed throughout.  With respect to his complaint about witnesses at his BOI, it is noted that none of his witnesses had testimony to present as to the facts of the alleged misconduct and none were local.  Telephonic testimony was perfectly permissible under the applicable regulations.  The ABRE reviewed his complete BOI packet de novo and concurred with the findings of the BOI.  There were no legal problems that required return of the case and any errors that may have existed were harmless given the overwhelming nature of the evidence. 

14.  The applicant has only his own flawed decision-making to blame for the loss of his career.  His misguided effort to attend school against the wishes of his commander apparently triggered a decline in his attitude and performance and culminated in the applicant making a thinly veiled threat to kill.  He left his command little choice but to pursue elimination.  There is no error or injustice and 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 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)                                         AR20130013956



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130013956



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1