IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  28 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140001637 


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:

   a.  A DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report (OER)) covering the period 
16 May 2011 through 18 June 2012 and all associated documents and materials in connection with the OER be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR). 

	b.  The National Defense University (NDU) be instructed to complete the original, positively worded OER drafted by his chain of command in March 2012 and place the positive evaluation into his AMHRR. 

	c.  Award of the Joint Meritorious Service Medal (correctly known as the Defense Meritorious Service Medal).

	d.  Reinstatement on the current Battalion Command Selection List.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  The issuance of a referred OER was unjust and in direct violation of Department of Defense (DOD) regulations, the policies of the NDU, the Joint Forces Staff College Student Handbook, and the Constitution of the United States.  

	b.  This disregard for DOD regulations led to substantive errors, administrative irregularities, and glaring injustices throughout the entire process connected to the motivations behind and the creation of this OER. 

	c.  In June 2012, Lieutenant General (Lt Gen) F (U.S. Marine Corps) unjustly removed him from his position as an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC).  His assignment was the difficult task of updating and instructing the "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism" elective course.  From the genesis of this elective course, it tackled the complex and difficult topic of Islamic Radicalism.  Nonetheless, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) 
(Gen P) and the leadership within the NDU/JFSC determined that the material was important and relevant enough in 2004 to warrant an entire course devoted to this subject matter.  Despite the legitimate origins of this course described above, Lt Gen F's directed actions against him in 2012, utterly disregarding the authority and legitimacy of Gen P's directed mission in 2004.  In relieving him from his position at JFSC, Lt Gen F also disobeyed long-established Academic Freedom and Non-Attribution regulations governing conduct of students and faculty at NDU.  Furthermore, the actions of Lt Gen F violated his Constitutional Rights, as articulated in the First Amendment and specifically cited by the NDU in its policies on faculty conduct.   

	d.  In an act of even more aggravating effect, Lt Gen F's rationale for his relief unfairly attempts to assign him single responsibility for course DVD materials that existed several years prior to his assignment to the instructor duty position.  In his relief, Lt Gen F further criticized the use of a legitimate, doctrinal, operational design teaching tool created from materials already present in the course and common to the JFSC curriculum.  Lt Gen F's comments are a further injustice by asserting an outright falsehood regarding an alleged failure to include elements of U.S. Countering-Violent Extremism policies.  Ultimately, the indefensible actions of Lt Gen F betray his complete lack of understanding of the content, academic purpose, and origins of the operational design element of the elective, as well as demonstrate his utter failure to acknowledge NDU's role in creating the course as he originally found it.  Lt Gen F's assertions against him in his reason for his relief are thus underpinned in flawed logic, poor justification, and an unethical attempt to use him as a scapegoat for a course created years prior to his assignment at NDU.  Curiously, in mandating the creation of this negative OER against him, Lt Gen F ignored previous OER comments from just a year prior to his relief, which positively praised his performance connected with the same elective; the same performance which Lt Gen F was now condemning.  Given the absence of legitimacy in Lt Gen F's actions and the resultant violation of his constitutional rights, these actions and this unjust OER must not be permitted to stand.

	e.  From the beginning, the actions taken against him violate principles of due process, which resulted in a contaminated atmosphere of undue command influence that permeated the majority of the proceedings in this matter.  Specifically, during a Pentagon press conference on 10 May 2012, the CJCS, Gen D, expressed negative opinions regarding the perspectives on the Islam and Islamic radicalism elective course content, charactering it as "totally objectionable" and "against our values."  In this same press conference, Gen D personally committed to removing any similar curriculum from military professional education within the JFSC and elsewhere.  Gen D's prejudicial comments and commitments were made prior to completing the fact-finding process.  These official statements effectively directed the outcome of the "fact" investigation that was to follow and violated the most basic tenet of due process – not to cast judgment prior to collection and assessment of the facts and motivations of the actors at issue.  Though Gen D did not specifically mention his name in his public statement, his excoriation of him as "the individual" responsible for the course content cannot have failed to poison the atmosphere of any ongoing inquiry into this matter.  At minimum, Gen D created an appearance of impropriety through his public comments in that he signaled both the Secretary of Defense’s and CJCS's official view on the matter before the inquiry had been conducted.  

	f.  Public comments from such a high-ranking official within the chain of command cannot fail to improperly impinge upon the independent fact-finding process and improperly direct the outcome of any preliminary inquiry.  Given this premature declaration, it is highly unlikely that the outcome of any investigation into the perspectives on Islam and Islamic radicalism elective and the follow-on actions against him could have avoided at least some prejudicial contamination.  It is his concern that this prejudicial influence extends to both the subsequently directed OER process, as well as the associated decision by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen A, to subsequently remove him from the Battalion Command Selection List.

	g.  It is clear from the OER and the supporting letter from Lt Gen F that the applicant was relieved from his position because Lt Gen F perceived failure in his judgment as an instructor and an officer in the U.S. Army.  In particular, Lt Gen F claimed that his judgment was lacking when he asserts he allegedly 1) created an operation design briefing that was not in accordance with DOD or U.S. policy on countering violent extremism (CVE); 2) he did not incorporate current U.S. Policy or the Chairman of the CJCS joint professional military education special (JPME) areas of emphasis guidance, dated 16 May 2011; and 3) he released a DVD to the students containing potentially objectionable material that he did not review and was labeled with NDU and JFSC logos.  He submits these allegations rest almost entirely on mischaracterizations or outright falsehoods, and as a result the referred OER in question is an unjust depiction of his judgment.  This OER should be removed from his AMHRR and corrective actions taken to repair the subsequent injustices inflicted against his career.  

3.  The applicant further states:

	a.  The elective was conducted at JFSC for 6 years prior to his arrival and was well established within the JFSC elective curriculum.  The course had at least five instructors before it became his assignment.  Each instructor added to the course and ensured continuity with the following instructor.  He first attended the course as a student and was subsequently hand-selected to instruct this course by the previous senior instructor.

	b.  The DVD released to students containing potentially objectionable material, while labeled with NDU and JFSC logos, was in accordance with standard procedures at the time of distribution.

	c.  The operational design portion of the elective was created in response to student demands for such an instrument.  The elements of the operational design slideshow originated from previous course material.  The operational design in question was also vetted and pre-approved by Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) M, a seasoned and veteran instructor of the elective, prior to its first presentation in front of the students.  By late 2011, it became clear that the inclusion of more moderate Muslim views would balance the perspectives of many of the more critical guest speakers.  Each time the operational design class was taught, students were briefed up-front that this was a design to purely provoke dynamic academic discussion.  The material was never presented as advocating any official U.S. or DOD policy.

	d.  It is of critical importance to acknowledge that his relief for cause (RFC) was wholly unjust regardless of Lt Gen F's or either of his raters' opinions of his judgment.  The JFSC maintains a clearly-delineated academic freedom and non-attribution policy, as a matter of signed CJCS guidance.  This policy was clearly ignored and subsequently violated when he was relieved from his position.

	e.  Throughout his tenure as an instructor at JFSC, he operated under the regulations, expectations, assurances, and protections of the Academic Freedom policies in the NDU Faculty Handbook, which are also incorporated into applicable U.S. Supreme Court rulings on academic freedom and the First Amendment.  

	f.  The NDU non-attribution policy, commonly understood in academia as "off-the-record" or "Chatham House Rules," is well-entrenched at NDU to enable and encourage the university community and visiting guests to speak candidly.  The policy assures that presentations offered and discussions held are conducted in strict confidence.  Incoming instructors are explicitly taught to operate under these rules and to exercise the latitude that it clearly implies.

	g.  As the topics addressed radical Islam, they inherently inspire intense opinions and a variety of emotional responses among students and faculty; however, the process used to incorporate those topics into the curriculum was consistent with the NDU educational mandates.  The techniques used during the course, to include hyperbolic arguments about Islam, were merely to provoke thought and discussion among the students and it was never intended for public release.  His actions and all class materials were specifically protected under section 4e of DOD Directive 5230.09 (Clearance of DOD Information for Public Release).  His intentions were to challenge students to think outside the box much like any professor in a university setting would when analyzing complicated and controversial subject matter.  These techniques were in harmony with academic freedom and explicitly disclaimed that they did not advocate any specific policy.

	h.  While First Amendment Rights may be somewhat restricted for Soldiers, it is reasonable to expect that any assignment where a Soldier is specifically tasked to speak about a specific subject would have protections associated with the views expressed regarding the assigned topic.  It is contradictory and a fundamental leadership failure for a senior leader to assign a mission to instruct a course that by its very nature is immersed in a controversial subject, then subsequently punish the Soldier for executing his task.

	i.  Should the foregoing argument be insufficient to withdraw the RFC OER, there remains a preponderance of the evidence supporting the argument that the OER in question is an unjust assessment of his judgment.

	j.  The operational design briefing discussed elements of DOD and U.S. policy on CVE, despite Lt Gen F's assertions to the contrary.  When he created the operational design model, he made use of his recent JPME at JFSC to create a product that addressed all military and "soft" elements of U.S. national power.  The goal was to initiate critical policy discussions with the students throughout the course.  

	k.  The evidence clearly shows the operational design briefing was in accordance with both DOD and CVE policy as written at the time the material was briefed.  It was therefore unjust for his judgment to be called into question and used as a basis for his RFC OER.  Furthermore, the operational design was approved by a senior faculty member.  Finally, the course was given a thorough review by NDU in December 2011 and was found to be in compliance with its academic standards and policies.

	l.  The operational design brief incorporated current U.S. policy on the CJCS's JPME Special Areas of Emphasis guidance, dated 16 May 2011.  The entire operational design is a practical exercise in the current National Implementation Plan for U.S. Counter Terrorism Strategy and its four pillars (protect and defend the homeland, attack the terrorist capabilities, CVE, and prevent terrorist acquisition of weapons of mass destruction).  Its primary focus is on how to best apply this mission specifically against radical Islamic threats.  A clear and extensive discussion on how to "protect and defend the homeland" occurs in the operational design.  

	m.  Though Lt Gen F's accusations indict the elective for an absence of CVE policy, the original NDU-approved syllabus in 2004 and 2008 never addressed a requirement to discuss current CVE policy in the elective in the first place.

	n.  The overwhelming presence of material evidence renders Lt Gen F's second assertion as articulated in his RFC notice demonstrably false and unjust.  The course topic, by its very nature, evokes emotional thought.  The methodology employed to teach the course was intended to spur the students' academic thought.  While Lt Gen F may have disagreed with his method of instruction, the academic freedom and non-attribution policies of the NDU, when properly implemented, should have protected him from any retribution.  It is patently unfair to allow a disagreement over methodology to taint the evaluation of the course in its entirety.  The course clearly incorporated the JPME curricula requirements and other U.S. policies, and the assertion that it did not is patently inaccurate.

4.  The applicant also states:

	a.  It is clearly proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his judgment was not lacking when he distributed the disks.  It was common practice throughout the JFSC to distribute class materials for them to be referred back to and studied at a later date.  The material contained within the DVDs is also subject to the academic freedom and non-attribution clauses of the NDU and should never have been used against him.

	b.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) requires a Soldier to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the information in an OER is incorrect or unjust.  In his case, it is clear that the OER unjustly attacks his judgment.  He was given a difficult and complicated mission that engaged future Army leadership in discussions of a politically volatile and divisive issue.

	c.  The justification for his relief ultimately rests on an unethical attempt to assign him single responsibility for course materials, content, and methodology that existed for several years prior to assignment to NDU and JFSC.  Following an inquiry initiated within an air contaminated by a lack of due-process as well as violations of his First Amendment rights, his accusers mischaracterized his use of a legitimate, doctrinal, operational design teaching tool as well as published outright falsehoods regarding an alleged failure to include elements of U.S. CVE policies in order to support creation of this unjust OER.  As the evidence has shown, the assertions made against him in this RFC OER are thus underpinned in flawed logic, poor justification, and an unprofessional, unconstitutional attempt to use him as a scapegoat for a previously-sanctioned course created years prior to his assignment at NDU.

	d.  He executed his mission under the parameters of the academic freedom and non-attribution policy of the NDU/JSFC.  In addition to those protections, his material was built directly upon the foundation laid by 5 years of previous classes and pre-approved by senior faculty.  It is clear that the OER is an unjust indictment of his judgment and should be corrected.  It is therefore unfair for him to be relieved for cause when he acted within a long-established academic environment governed by the approval and direction of senior instructors and the school's leadership.     

5.  The applicant provides 21 exhibits outlined on page 12 of his memorandum, dated 18 December 2013.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant on 28 May 1994.  He was promoted to:

* first lieutenant on 28 May 1996
* captain on 1 June 1998
* major on 1 August 2004
* LTC on 1 July 2010

2.  The contested OER is a 12-month RFC OER covering the period 16 May 2011 through 18 June 2012 for duties as a military faculty/instructor for the JFSC in Norfolk, VA.

	a.  In Part IV (Performance Evaluation – Professionalism), Part B (Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions), the rater placed an "X" in the "No" blocks of item b.2. (Skills) number 1 (Conceptual); and item b.3. (Actions) number 2 (Decision-Making) and number 5 (Executing).  These marks indicate a deficiency in these particular rated areas on the part of the rated officer.

	b.  In Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater)), Part A (Evaluate the Rated Officer’s Performance During the Rating Period and His/Her Potential for Promotion), the rater placed a checkmark in the "Other" block.

	c.  In Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation (Rater)), Part B (Comment on Specific Aspects of the Performance, Refer to Part III, DA Form 67-9 and Part IVa, b, and Part Vb, DA Form 67-9-1 (OER Support Form)), the rater stated:

The Joint Staff Director for Joint Force Development (Director, JS J-7), pursuant to his authority on behalf of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, relieved LTC [the applicant's last name] of his duties as an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College.  The relief was based on the findings of a chairman-directed investigation of LTC [the applicant's last name] actions during this reporting period.  The investigation into the course materials created and provided to students during the elective seminar titled "Perspective on Islam and Islamic Radicalism" determined that LTC [the applicant's last name] prepared, presented and distributed course material that was not in accordance with current US or DOD policy on countering violent extremism.  As a result, the Dir, JS J-7 concluded that this material was "far removed from responsible and prudent instruction on the topic," and caused the J-7 to lose confidence in LTC [the applicant's last name] judgment, resulting in his relief.  LTC [the applicant's last name] actions with this elective were not indicative of his strong performance while serving as a core course instructor during the rating period.  "Other" is marked in Par V(a) given the disparity between what had been LTC [the applicant's last name] otherwise excellent performance and his exercised lack of judgment and responsibility that led to his relief.

	d.  In Part VII (Senior Rater), Part A (Evaluate the Rated Officer's Promotion Potential to the Next Higher Grade), the senior rater placed a checkmark in the "Other" block.  "BELOW CENTER OF MASS – RETAIN" was entered in part VIIb (Potential Compared with Officers Senior Rated in Same Grade) by his senior rater.  


	e.  In Part VII (Senior Rater), Part C (Comment on Performance/Potential), the senior rater stated:

LTC [the applicant's last name] was relieved of his teaching responsibilities for admittedly exercising poor judgment.  Block VII(a) is marked "Other" due to the disparity between what had been LTC [the applicant's last name] otherwise excellent performance and the investigated incident that led to his relief.  Based on the findings of the investigation, I recommend LTC [the applicant's last name] be retained on active duty to complete his career.  The rated officer refused to sign.

3.  The contested RFC OER was referred to the applicant for acknowledgement.  He provided a rebuttal.    

4.  A memorandum, dated 18 June 2012, shows Lt Gen F relieved the applicant from his duties as an instructor at JFSC.  Lt Gen F stated:

	a.  He made the decision because of his lack of confidence in the applicant's judgment as an instructor and based upon his review of the course material he created and provided to students in his elective seminar titled "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism."

	b.  Specifically, the "operational design" briefing he developed was not in accordance with DOD or U.S. policy on CVE.  While he noted the applicant included a disclaimer in his briefing of the July 2011 version, he found the briefing to be far removed from responsible and prudent instruction on the topic.

	c.  He was also concerned that as a CVE elective course instructor he did not incorporate current U.S. policy or the DJCS's Joint Professional Military Education Special Areas of Emphasis guidance, dated 16 May 2011, on CVE into the course.

	d.  He further questioned the applicant's judgment for releasing a DVD to his students with material on it that was not reviewed by him and, when taken out of context, could easily be seen to contain highly-objectionable content.  Finally, the DVD gives the impression it is endorsed by DOD because the NDU and JFSC logos are prominently displayed on it.

5.  He provides an incomplete/draft OER covering the period 15 May 2011 through 31 March 2012 which shows he was rated "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" by his rater.

6.  The applicant provides four faculty endorsement letters, dated July 2012, which state:

* his character is of the highest standards
* he is ready for and deserves a command
* a retired LTC observed all 8 classes in question and found it even better than all the positive student feedback the course had already received
* he was requested by name to be a member of an LTC's teaching team
* he has a well-earned reputation as one of the finest instructors
* the LTC finds it disturbing that the applicant's character and flawless reputation have been called into question, and that the academic freedom and non-attribution policies seem to have been disregarded in this case
* he is an excellent officer who represents and upholds the ideals and promise of the U.S. and the U.S. Armed Forces every day
* he is an exceptional instructor and his teaching methods reflect the best in Joint Education
* the events and context surrounding the elective that the applicant was assigned as the instructor have been grossly misrepresented in the media and to higher headquarters
* he deserves the opportunity to learn from this series of events and enjoy the privilege of command
* his performance of duty throughout his tenure at JFSC was consistently rated exceptional by students and supervisors
* the episode that prompted his relief from teaching duties should be properly understood and fully placed in appropriate context before any career-ending decisions are reached
* a comprehensive General Officer level preliminary inquiry was completed, as directed by the Joint Staff, in response to a complaint received from a non-enrolled student
* the General Officer inquiry arrived at a logical conclusion with appropriate recommendations
* the report recommended the applicant be formally counseled by the JFSC Commandant with regard to the hypothetical examples he used in the elective seminar  

7.  In September 2012, the applicant petitioned the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) to remove the contested OER from his AMHRR.  

8.  On 28 November 2012, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army removed his name from the Fiscal Year 2013, LTC, Army (Maneuver, Fires and Effects) Command Selection List.

9.  In February 2013, the OSRB denied his request and determined the overall merits of his case did not warrant the requested relief. 

10.  The applicant’s records contain a memorandum from the Director of the Joint Staff, Washington, DC, Lieutenant General S, who stated he convened a Commander’s Inquiry into alleged errors and injustices pertaining to the contested OER.  The inquiry focused on specific allegations of inaccurate and untrue performance comments and lack of objectivity or fairness by the rating official.  Lieutenant General S stated the fact-finding investigation found that the rating official’s performance comments were consistent with the findings of a legally-sufficient Joint Forces Staff College investigation into the applicant’s actions during the rating period, and the OER was issued in accordance with regulations and without evidence of a lack of objectivity or fairness.

11.  His subsequent DA Form 67-9 covering the period 19 June 2012 through 
1 April 2013 shows he was rated "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" by his rater and he was rated "Best Qualified" by his senior rater.

12.  On 29 April 2013, in a 13-page OER appeal memorandum with
26 enclosures, he petitioned the Army Review Boards Agency to remove the RFC OER in question.  In summary, he reiterated the above contentions.

13.  There are no letter orders for the Defense Meritorious Service Medal in the available records.  

14.  A review of the applicant's AMHRR on the interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS) revealed a copy of the contested RFC OER.

15.  Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System) states an evaluation report accepted by Headquarters, Department of the Army, and included in the official record of a rated Soldier is presumed to be administratively correct, to have been prepared by the properly designated rating officials, and to represent the considered opinions and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  Requests that an evaluation report in a Soldier's AMHRR be altered, withdrawn, or replaced with another report will not be honored.  The regulation also states the burden of proof rests with the applicant.  Accordingly, to justify deletion or amendment of a report, the applicant will produce evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that:

	a.  the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration; and

	b.  action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice.

16.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (AMHRR Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR.  It states the purpose of the AMHRR is to preserve permanent documents pertaining to enlistment, appointment, duty stations, assignments, training, qualifications, performance, awards, medals, disciplinary actions, insurance, emergency data, separation, retirement, casualty, administrative remarks, and any other personnel actions.  The regulation states OERs are required for filing in iPERMS. 

17.  DOD Manual Number 1348.33 (Manual of Military Decorations and Awards:  General Information, Medal of Honor, and Defense/Joint Decorations and Awards) states the Defense Meritorious Service Medal is the third-highest Defense/Joint peacetime award bestowed upon members of the United States military by the United States DOD.  The medal is awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense to members of the Armed Forces who, while serving in a joint activity, distinguish themselves by non-combat outstanding achievement or meritorious service, but not of a degree to warrant award of the Defense Superior Service Medal.  

18.  Army Regulation 15-185 provides Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions regarding an applicant’s request for the correction of a military record.  In pertinent part, it states the Board will decide cases on the evidence of record.  It is not an investigative body.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for completion of his Joint assignments at NDU.  However, this Board may only correct Army records.  The requested award is a Defense, not an Army, award and the Board has no jurisdiction over Defense awards.      

2.  The applicant contends the RFC OER should be removed from his AMHRR and corrective actions taken to repair the subsequent injustices inflicted against his career. 

3.  He contends the elective in question was conducted at JFSC for 6 years prior to his arrival and was well established within the JFSC elective curriculum.  He contends the material contained within the DVDs is also subject to the academic freedom and non-attribution clauses of the NDU and should never have been used against him.  He contends the justification for his relief ultimately rests on an unethical attempt to assign him single responsibility for course materials, content, and methodology that existed for several years prior to assignment at NDU and JFSC.  

4.  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not an investigative agency.  It decides cases on the evidence of record.

5.  There is evidence of record to show that both a Commander’s Inquiry into his allegations of inaccurate and untrue performance comments and lack of objectivity or fairness (by the Director of the Joint Staff) and a Joint Forces Staff College investigation (found to be legally sufficient) into his actions during the contested rating period were conducted.  Other than his continued disagreement with the rating official’s comments, the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show that those two investigations were tainted or themselves unfair in any way.

6.  His request to instruct the NDU to complete the original, positively-worded OER drafted by his chain of command in March 2012 and place the positive evaluation into his AMHRR was noted.  However, the contested RFC OER was prepared by the properly-designated rating officials and is properly filed in his military records in accordance with the governing regulation.  There is no evidence that it was improperly prepared or filed.

7.  The faculty letters of endorsements and his subsequent outstanding OER were carefully considered.  However, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show the RFC OER did not represent the considered opinion and the objective judgment of the rater and senior rater at the time of preparation.  

8.  An OER accepted for filing in the AMHRR is presumed to represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials when it was prepared.  Although he contends the OER is incorrect or unjust, his application must be supported by substantive evidence.

9.  In view of the above, clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of substantive error or factual inaccuracy.  The applicant has not met this threshold of proof with the type of evidence he submitted.  There was no evidence to disprove the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials when the RFC OER was prepared.  

10.  He also wants reinstatement on the current Battalion Command Selection list.  However, there is insufficient evidence on which to base reinstating his status on the current Battalion Command Selection list.

11.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis for granting the applicant's requests.

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)                                         AR20140001637



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140001637



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1