BOARD DATE:	  6 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130018503 


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 amendment of his permanent change of station (PCS) orders to show temporary duty (TDY) and a waiver of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) debt.

2.  The applicant states his TDY orders were mistakenly drafted as PCS orders resulting in DFAS making deductions from his pay to recover TDY expenses.  PCS pay was clearly inappropriate for the duration of the orders and the conditions of the mission.  Attempts to amend the orders have failed.  The resulting debt is a major financial burden that DFAS has refused to off-set by what would have been received in his basic allowance for housing.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* A Statement of Non-Availability memorandum
* Order Number 076009 (TDY)
* Orders Number T-09-748051 (active duty (AD))
* Three DD Forms 1351-2 (Travel Voucher or Subvoucher)
* Three lodging invoices
* Order Number 038947 (TDY) 
* Orders Number T-09-7480511A01 (amendment to AD)
* A Roger's Travel Query by Social Security Number (SSN)
* DA Form 1559 (Inspector General (IG) Action Request)
* A memorandum to LTC Pxxxxx from the applicant's counsel with attached statement from the applicant
* Two DD Forms 2789 (Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application)
* A letter to DFAS from his battalion commander
* Four Leave and Earnings Statements (LES)
* A Memorandum for Record (MFR)
* Incomplete Waiver/Remission Package letter from DFAS
* "ODS" Military PCS with Doc Number chart
* Greg Atlas Chart
* Remission Documents memorandum
* Letter from DFAS and Collection Voucher
* Five Travel Voucher Summaries
* Four Travel Vouchers
* An Individual Traveler Valid Payment History in "ODS" chart
* Chronological chain of events concerning his incorrect orders and an evidence log
* Nine emails written between the applicant, DFAS, and the Assistant IG

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests the applicant's orders, which have been interpreted as requiring PCS status, be retroactively amended to specifically authorize TDY status.

2.  Counsel states:

   a.  On 28 September 2007, the applicant, then in a Reserve status, was ordered to AD for training (ADT) for 179 days at the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Element, Central Command (CENTCOM), San Diego, CA.  The orders include the words, "PCS AUTH."

   b.  Not long after, the applicant realized that the orders were mistakenly drafted and brought it to the attention of his supervisor, Major (MAJ) Bxxxxxx.  MAJ Bxxxxxx allegedly sent a request for the orders to be amended.  The orders were eventually amended to reduce the time of training from 179 days to 114 days, within the duration acceptable for TDY status.  However, no amendment was made to the language stating that the trip was "PCS AUTH."

   c.  According to DFAS, during the applicant's training period at USAR Element CENTCOM, the applicant received $22,819.75 in per diem TDY pay.  DFAS argues that because the applicant was on PCS orders, he should not have received per diem pay and therefore must remit the money.  DFAS has since begun to deduct $690.75 per month from the applicant's pay due to a "travel pay debt."

   d.  Once DFAS began to deduct money from the applicant's pay, he applied to DFAS for a waiver of indebtedness.  DFAS denied the application, stating the application was incomplete.  The applicant immediately submitted a memorandum to DFAS in an effort to fully support his claim.

   e.  In early 2010, the applicant received legal assistance from Captain (CPT) Cxxxxxx, of the Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps.  CPT Cxxxxxx submitted a memorandum to Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Pxxxx at CENTCOM requesting that the applicant's orders be retroactively amended to state the training period was TDY.  After receiving no response from CENTCOM, the applicant submitted a request to the IG for an investigation.

   f.  The Assistant IG handling the investigation, Mr. Mxxxxxx, was unable to assist the applicant and recommended the applicant submit a memorandum to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

   g.  By reaching out to his chain of command for modification of his orders, submitting an official request for remittance of debt to DFAS, and requesting an investigation by the IG, the applicant has exhausted his administrative recourse and now requests that the ABCMR retroactively modify his orders to explicitly state that his training period was TDY.

   h.  The applicant's claim that his chain of command originally intended for him to be in a TDY status is supported by following strong evidence:

		(1)  When the applicant reported for duty in San Diego, he was given a Statement of Non-Availability of housing that shows the San Diego Army Reserve Center had no space for PCS housing.  The applicant could not realistically have been expected to relocate to San Diego and lease an apartment for a period of under 6 months; and 

		(2)  The applicant's orders were eventually amended to change the duration of his training from 179 days to fewer than 139 days.

3.  Counsel provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant, a sergeant first class, enlisted in the USAR on 21 April 1988 and held military occupational specialty 96B (Intelligence Analyst).  He provided copies of the following:

   a.  A Statement of Non-Availability memorandum, dated 25 February 2007, wherein the USAR, Remote Director of Intelligence, stated that Detachment 3, located at the Army Reserve Center, San Diego, did not have lodging or messing facilities.  Soldiers were entitled to the per diem rate for San Diego.

   b.  Order Number 076009, issued by the 81st Regional Readiness Command, dated 4 June 2007, ordering him to ADT to USAR Element CENTCOM for a period of 98 duty days.  The orders stated that Government quarters and meals were not available or directed.

   c.  Orders Number T-09-748051, issued by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 29 September 2007, ordering him to ADT at USAR Element CENTCOM for a period of 179 days.  The orders stated "PCS AUTH." 

   d.  A DA Form 1351-2, dated 1 November 2007, he submitted for lodging costs in the amount of $4,061.00 and dry cleaning and bank ATM fees totaling $103.00.  The form contains a hand-written entry stating he was on PCS orders, no per diem payable.

   e.  Three invoices, dated 1 December 2007, 1 January and 2 February 2008, for lodging from 1 to 31 December 2007, 1 to 22 January 2008, and 23 January to 1 February 2008, with a total amount owed of $7,074.00 to him. 

   f.  A DA Form 1351-2, dated 2 January 2008, he submitted for lodging costs in the amount of $4,061.00 and dry cleaning and bank ATM fees totaling $103.00.  

   g.  Orders Number 038947, issued by the 81st Regional Readiness Command, dated 23 January 2008, ordering him to ADT at USAR Element CENTCOM for 10 duty days.  The orders stated that Government quarters and meals were not available or directed.

   h.  Orders Number T-09-748051A01, issued by HRC, dated 22 January 2008, amending Order Number T-09-748051, to read 114 days.
   
   i.  A DA Form 1351-2, dated 1 February 2008, he submitted for lodging costs in the amount of $1,310.00 and laundry and bank ATM fees totaling $33.00.

   j.  A Travel Voucher Summary for the period 1 to 31 December 2007 for TDY Per Diem, Transportation, and Reimbursable costs for a total entitlement of $6,163.55 (including paid commercial lodgings, meals, laundry and ATM fees).

   k.  A Travel Voucher Summary for the period 1 to 22 January 2008 for TDY Per Diem, Transportation, and Reimbursable for a total entitlement of $4,520.82 (including paid commercial lodgings, meals, laundry, ATM fees, and mileage).

   l.  A Travel Voucher Summary for the period 23 January to 1 February 2008 for TDY Per Diem, Transportation, and Reimbursable for a total entitlement of $1,921.85.

   m.  A Roger's Travel Query by SSN, dated 6 February 2008, which shows amounts due on the applicant's travel vouchers.

   n.  A Travel Voucher Summary, prepared on 11 March 2008, which shows advances/prior payments in the amount of $22,819.75 with $22,819.75 due to the U.S. Government.

   o.  A memorandum from the Travel Section and Collection Voucher, DFAS, dated 11 March 2008, which advised the applicant he owed $22,819.75 to the U.S. Government for overpayment of Travel Advance or Per Diem.

   p.  A DA Form 1559 (IG Action Request), dated 22 April 2008, the applicant submitted for an investigation into why his original orders were for PCS and not TDY for his 179 days and why it was not amended in time and payment for his 10 days AT in January 2008.

   q.  A memorandum to LTC Pxxxx, dated 30 March 2010, wherein the applicant's counsel requested amendment of the applicant's orders to reflect he was in a TDY status as opposed to a PCS status.  Counsel stated:

		(1)  The applicant was placed on AD, PCS Orders, dated 28 September 2007, for a period of 179 days.  The applicant had requested TDY orders for a period of 179 days.  He was promised TDY orders and continually requested amendments of those orders through MAJ Bxxxxxx.  MAJ Bxxxxxx told the applicant to focus on the mission, submit his travel vouchers as though he was in a TDY status, and that the orders would be amended.  The applicant relied on those representations to his detriment;

		(2)  When it became clear that the orders would not be amended, the applicant requested immediate release from AD, which was granted.  The applicant also initiated an IG complaint related to the failure of the command to amend his orders.  According to DFAS, the applicant received approximately $22,819.77 as a result of his travel voucher submissions between October 2007 and January 2008, and still owes approximately $22,403.51;

		(3)  On or about 17 January 2008, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) initiated an investigation of the applicant for travel voucher fraud.  In the months that followed, the applicant's file was flagged and his security clearance was suspended.  As a result, the applicant was not able to mobilize or deploy, was not awarded an Army Commendation Medal for superior duty performance as recommended by his local unit commanders in Korea, could not attend Warrant Officer Candidate School, was ostracized by members of his unit who believed that being under investigation was proof of guilt, had his enlistment involuntarily extended no fewer than 6 months, and suffered financially.  On or about 15 December 2009, the Fort Irwin Senior JAG Office declined to prosecute the applicant for travel voucher fraud, citing lack of evidence;

		(4)  Representatives of DFAS have indicated to him telephonically and in email correspondence that the only way to eliminate the applicant's debt was through an amendment of his original orders.  DFAS suspended repayment of the applicant's debt until 1 April 2010.  He requested a 30-day extension of that deadline based upon LTC Pxxxx's request for additional documentation related to that case which was received on 23 March 2010; and 

		(5)  He requested immediate amendment of the applicant's orders to reflect service in a TDY status for the 114 days spent on AD between October 2007 and January 2008.  The applicant relied, to his own detriment, on the representatives of his chain of command and had suffered tremendously as a result of the protracted investigation that ultimately did not result in any criminal charges being filed.  The applicant should not have to repay the debt incurred.

   r.  An incomplete DD Form 2789, dated 5 June 2010, the applicant submitted for collection of TDY voucher.

   s.  A completed DD Form 2789, dated 24 June 2010, which shows blocks 23 through 31 were completed by the applicant's finance office.

   t.  A memorandum to DFAS, dated 24 June 2010, wherein the Commander, USAR Element CENTCOM, Detachment 3, LTC Pxxxx, denied the applicant's request for amendment of his orders to reflect a change from PCS to TDY.  The commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for a waiver of indebtedness of $22,820.00 and collection action thereof.  The commander stated:

		(1)  The incidents in that case occurred two commanders ago and should have been resolved within the first day or two of the orders.  The fact was that it now appeared to be the fault of multiple parties and not solely the applicant.  That case had consumed massive resources and time and should be resolved;

		(2)  That case was under investigation for travel voucher fraud by CID for over 18 months and at the conclusion of the investigation no charges were filed against the applicant.  The applicant is and was entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  As for the criminal investigation into his participation, he was not charged and therefore they had to accept the presumption of innocence.  The Soldier was entitled to due process which he had received in the criminal case and now was entitled to relief from the administrative side;

		(3)  His initial position was that the applicant can't have it both ways, he can't be declared not guilty of fraud and then not reimbursed.  There were many parties at fault here;

		(4)  His assessments of the facts were that the applicant had PCS orders dated "28 September" with a report date of 1 October.  If the orders were wrong they should have been amended right away.  If the applicant had been a private or second lieutenant and these were his first set of orders then maybe some more liberal understanding would be in order.  As a senior noncommissioned officer, sergeant first class, the applicant should not have let something clearly so wrong go on for so long.  Once his command was involved it was clear the situation should not have continued for so long;

		(5)  From his statement, the applicant had applied for TDY orders and thought that was what he received.  It was clear that 15 days into the orders on 15 October, MAJ Bxxxxxx and the applicant were both aware of the order status being PCS.  MAJ Bxxxxxx, acting on behalf of the Commander, told the applicant the orders would be amended and he should submit his travel voucher. He did and it was paid.  It was unclear to him whether or not that was an error on DFAS's part.  That went on for several months until the orders were revoked;

		(6)  The fact that the situation went on after 15 October was apparently due to slow action on the part of the chain of command, which could have been attributable to the possibility that members of the chain of command (not the applicant) had a financial interest in the orders remaining TDY and the applicant receiving reimbursement for as long as possible;

		(7)  While other parties in the applicant's chain of command at the time have been further investigated and reprimanded over that issue, his attention was to the case of the applicant.  The applicant was not the only one at fault here and it flew in the face of justice that he should be the only one financially liable; however, the applicant did share some of the responsibility for that issue going on for 15 days, but after that it was a command and thus DFAS issue; and 

		(8)  While it was his recommendation that given the totality of the situation that the applicant's debt be completely waived, it would also be an acceptable position for all but 7 to 15 days be waived because under normal circumstances that was how long it should have taken to remedy the issue or have the orders revoked in the beginning.

   u.  An ODC Military PCS With Doc Number and Greg Atlas, dated 13 December 2010, which shows the applicant owes $22,819.75.

   v.  A letter, dated 7 December 2011, wherein the Chief, Remission and Waivers Branch, Debt and Claims Management, DFAS, advised the applicant that they were unable to process the waiver/remission application he submitted, as the form was incomplete.  Blocks 23 through 31 needed to be completed by his finance office.

   w.  A Remission Documents memorandum, dated 8 December 2011, wherein the applicant requested remission of debt previously assessed to him as payment of that debt would cause a financial hardship from which he would never recover.  

   x.  Three Travel Vouchers processed by DFAS on 18, 21 and 29 June and 17 August 2012, showing payments to the applicant in the total amount of $1,109.00.
   
   y.  A letter, dated 13 November 2012, from the IG, wherein the applicant was advised:

		(1)  Both DFAS and Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff (HQDA, DCS) G1 took the position that the words "PCS AUTH" in his orders constituted a PCS because DFAS had nothing to indicate his former's unit's intent was for him to go TDY to San Diego and it was a mistake to pay him TDY under "PCS" orders.  HQDA DCS G1 agreed, and added that the 114 days ran consecutively with a previous 98-day TDY to San Diego, above the 179 days that made the combined tours a PCS.  An exception to policy was required and approved in advance to allow for any per diem.

		(2)  Since his claim was never intended to be a PCS, that the "PCS" order was in error, his recourse was to appeal to the ABCMR.

   z.  Four LESs, dated November 2009, January 2010, March 2010, and November 2012, which show a travel pay debt was being deducted from his pay.

   aa.  An Individual Traveler Valid Payment History in ODS, dated 9 October 2012, which shows the applicant was overpaid per diem on Order Number 
T-09-748051, dated 28 September 2007.

   ab.  An MFR, dated 16 September 2013, wherein the Commander, 175th Financial Management Support Unit, stated:

		(1)  Around late February 2013, his office was approached by First Lieutenant (now CPT) Jxxxxxx, a JAG Attorney, who asked for assistance in resolving a debt dispute between DFAS and his client, the applicant.  The applicant had received TDY pay for some time in 2008 before DFAS concluded that he had actually been in a PCS status, and had begun deducting money from his paycheck to return what DFAS considered an erroneous payment.  The applicant's JAG attorney at the time had successfully gotten DFAS to stop those payments, and the applicant had thought the matter was resolved.  In 2012, however, DFAS began taking these payments from his monthly earnings

		(2)  Their office worked closely with CPT Jxxxxxx for several months to attempt to resolve the issue.  After looking through their options, meeting with the applicant, and carefully examining the record of orders and payments, they determined that their office would be unable to resolve the issue, and informed CPT Jxxxxxx; and

		(3)  They were unable to resolve the issue since that action was reinitiated by DFAS and could only be adjusted by that office and not locally.  Also, they were unable to obtain all the necessary documentation to make a determination on that issue.

	ac.  A chronological chain of events and evidence log concerning his incorrect orders.

	ad.  Nine emails, dated between September and December 2007, between himself and DFAS and the Assistant IG, pertaining to his amendment of his PCS orders.

3.  He entered AD in an Active Guard Reserve status on 26 October 2012.

4.  On 26 December 2013, an advisory opinion was rendered in this case by the Chief, Compensation and Entitlements Division, DCS, G-1.  The G-1 official stated:

   a.  Based on their review of the documentation contained in the applicant's packet and in discussion with the U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC) and DFAS, they recommended the ABCMR deny the applicant's request to amend his PCS orders to TDY.  Moreover, they considered the debt to be valid and not issued in error.

   b.  The USARC G-8 confirmed that although the travel order was issued under an ADT status instead of an AD for Operations Support-Reserve Components (ADOS-RC), the PCS status order was correct.  Evidence proves that prior to the issuance of 179 days order the applicant was already performing ADT orders at the same location for 98 days, thus, the issuance of a subsequent 179-day order with no break in service took him over the TDY time limitation of 180/140 days, respectively.

   c.  In accordance with Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) U7600, assignment extensions that, when added to the original authorized period, total 180/140 or more consecutive days, the order is a PCS.  More so, there was no evidence that the Soldier received a Secretariat waiver approval to remain on a TDY status, thus, there was no authority to change the PCS order to a TDY order.  

   d.  The issuance of his release from AD (REFRAD) order on 22 January 2008 had no impact on the PCS determination since the intent was not to make it a TDY, rather to REFRAD the applicant.  Effective 1 October 2007, the applicant's entitlements should be commensurate to a PCS.

   e.  Prior to the ABCMR's decisions they recommend the Board request a copy of the CID investigation and the results of the DFAS remission/cancellation applicant to determine any injustice.

5.  On 9 January 2014, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledge and/or possible rebuttal.  In a response, dated 30 January 2014, the applicant's counsel stated:
   a.  As the Board considered whether to adopt, reject, or adopt in part the advisory opinion, he urged the ABCMR to consider one single point:  The ABCMR was empowered per Army Regulation 15-185 to correct records to rectify error or injustice; the advisory opinion only addressed technical error in reaching the conclusion to deny the applicant his requested relief.

   b.  It was unjust to deduct TDY pay on the basis that the applicant was not technically entitled to it, because the Army permitted him to spend thousands of dollars on temporary lodging based on the reasonable assumption that he would receive that TDY pay.

   c.  Given the time that has elapsed since 2007, many of the official records necessary to establish the applicant's case fully are unavailable.  Nevertheless, the attached email chain from MAJ Bxxxxxx was sufficient to establish the following relevant points:

		(1)  The applicant and MAJ Bxxxxxx (who, per MAJ Bxxxxxx's statements, were identically situated for purposes of this case) entered and remained on ADT under the assumption they would be compensated for the substantial living costs they incurred under TDY;

		(2)  The applicant was under the reasonable belief that based on MAJ Bxxxxxx's efforts to amend the orders, the orders would ultimately be correctly cut to authorize TDY pay;

		(3)  The applicant was not dispelled of that belief until more than 2 months (late September until early December) after MAJ Bxxxxxx requested assistance on the issue.   MAJ Bxxxxxx finally expressed on 6 December that he was disinclined to assist; and

		(4)  Had the applicant and MAJ Bxxxxxx been notified in a timelier manner that a real and potentially unfixable problem with the TDY pay existed, the applicant would likely have requested not to remain on ADT, as his food and lodging expenses were extremely burdensome.

   d.  Even if one accepted that the advisory opinion was technically correct, accepting the opinion’s conclusions amounts to denying that the Army has an obligation to communicate financial limitations to those Soldiers.  As the applicant's situation currently stands, the Army permitted him to spend money on temporary lodging to the tune of over $20,000.00 before clarifying that money was entirely at his own expense, albeit necessary for the performance of his duties to the Army.  That was simply an unacceptable result.

   e.  On behalf of the applicant, he requested that the ABCMR reject the advisory opinion and amend the applicant's orders to authorize TDY status.  Moreover, given the amount of money at stake, he requested that pursuant to its discretion, the ABCMR permit the applicant to attend a personal hearing at his own expense before denying him relief.

   f.  Counsel provided copies of 5 email correspondence between LTC Bxxxxxx and the applicant's command, dated between September and December 2007, pertaining to amending the applicant's PCS orders to TDY orders.

6.  JFTR U7600E2 states per diem is payable for fewer than 140 days (PCS) and per diem is not payable for 140 or more days (TDY).   Government quarters and Government dining facility/mess availability does not change this determination. 

7.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant's request for the correction of a military record.  Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant, while already on orders for 98 days, was issued ADT PCS orders for 179 days.  He requested the orders be amended to TDY orders.  During that time, he submitted travel vouchers and received TDY pay.  He was denied amendment of the PCS orders and thus incurred a debt with DFAS in the amount of $22,891.75. 

2.  The Commander, USAR Element CENTCOM, denied amendment of the PCS orders and stated, in effect:

   a.  It was clear the applicant and MAJ Bxxxxxx were both aware of the orders status being PCS and if the orders were wrong they should have been amended right away.  The applicant was subsequently investigated by CID for travel voucher fraud.  At the conclusion of the investigation no charges were filed against the applicant.  Other parties in the applicant's chain of command were further investigated and reprimanded over the issue.  

   b.  The applicant was not the only one at fault; however, he did share some of the responsibility for the issues going on for 15 days.  He recommended DFAS waive all but 7 to 15 days of the applicant's debt because under normal circumstances that was how long it should have taken to remedy the issue.  

3.  In accordance with the JFTR U7600, the applicant's assignment extension totaled more than 180 consecutive days, which is a PCS, and took him over the TDY time limitation.  In order to remain on a TDY status, the applicant needed an approved waiver.  There is no evidence he was given an approved waiver; therefore, there was no authority to change the PCS order to a TDY order.  Therefore, he is not entitled to amendment of his PCS orders.

4.  With respect to his debt, notwithstanding the fact no charges were filed against him by CID, it was his responsibility to ensure his appropriate entitlements during this period of service.  It was clear to him that he was on PCS orders or he would not have requested an amendment.  As a senior NCO, it was his responsibility to ensure receipt of amended orders before submitting any travel vouchers.  This he did not do and as a result incurred a debt to the U.S. Government.  This is a valid debt and it was not issued in error.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a waiver of indebtedness to the U.S. Government.

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

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)                                         AR20130018503



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130018503



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1