IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  6 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140003111 


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 removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 17 October 2009, and a DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report OER)) for the period 1 May 2009 through 1 February 2010 (20090501 thru 20100201, hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) (also known as Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR).

2.  The applicant defers to counsel.

3.  The applicant provides:

* an 8-page legal brief and associated enclosures
* Headquarters, United States Army Reserve Command, memorandum, subject:  Show Cause Recommendation, dated 28 July 2014

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests favorable consideration of the applicant's appeal of the decision by the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) to deny his request for reconsideration to remove the GOMOR, dated 17 October 2009, and the contested OER from his OMPF.  Alternatively, if the Board declines the applicant's requests for removal, he requests that the aforementioned documents be transferred to the restricted folder in the applicant's OMPF.

2.  Counsel states that pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)), AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information), and AR 623-3 (Evaluation Report Appeals), the applicant hereby appeals the decision by the DASEB to deny his request for reconsideration to remove a GOMOR from his OMPF and he also appeals the contested OER.  Alternatively, the applicant requests that this Board transfer the GOMOR and the OER to the restricted folder of his OMPF.

3.  Counsel's presentation of Statement of the Facts:

	a.  GOMOR:

		(1)  Following a 19 September 2009 AR 15-6 (Procedures for Investigation Officers (IO) and Boards of Officers) investigation, on 21 October 2009 Brigadier General (BG) W____, Commander, Headquarters, 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary), Joint Base Balad, Iraq, reprimanded the applicant for engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier.  On 26 October 2009, the applicant submitted written matters requesting that the GOMOR be placed in his local file because the allegations against him were false, untrue, unfounded, and would cause irreparable harm to his career.  On 18 November 2009, BG W____ directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF.  (See Enclosure 1.)

		(2)  On 13 January 2011, a four-member board convened to determine whether the applicant's federal recognition should be withdrawn "due to an act of misconduct by engaging in misconduct, specifically, fraternization consisting of a sexual relationship with a junior enlisted [S]oldier while he held the rank of officer."  The board unanimously found that there was no substantial evidence that the applicant engaged in the alleged misconduct.  Accordingly, the board determined that the applicant should retain his federal recognition.  (See Enclosure 2.)

		(3)  On 27 May 2011, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG) and was assigned to a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Troop Program Unit (TPU).

	b.  OER:

		(1)  On 12 August 2010, the applicant received the contested OER.  In Part IV, Performance Evaluation - Professionalism, the applicant's rater, captain (CPT) S__________, indicated that the applicant did not possess the following:  mental and emotional attributes; conceptual and interpersonal skills; and decision-making and building actions.
		(2)  In Part V, Performance and Potential Evaluation, CPT S__________ wrote:

During this rating period, [the applicant] was found, during a 15-6 investigation, to have had inappropriate sexual relations with a junior enlisted female Soldier.  He received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, in his permanent file, for violating AR 600-20 [Army Command Policy] and the brigade visitation policy.  [The applicant's] disregard for these policies as well as the Army Values with his conduct, he demonstrates a lack of decision making skills, and should not be retained.

		(3)  In Part VII, Senior Rater, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) S____ wrote:

During this rating period an AR 15-6 investigation documented an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted female Soldier for which he received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand.  His subsequent appeal of the GOMOR was denied.

		(4)  LTC S____ rated the applicant's promotion potential as "OTHER" and did not check a box for the applicant's potential compared with others.

		(5)  Both CPT S__________ and LTC S____ recommended that the applicant not be retained and not be promoted.

	c.  Procedural background:

		(1)  On 8 July 2011, the applicant submitted an appeal to the DASEB, requesting the removal of the GOMOR from his OMPF and performance fiche because the GOMOR was untrue and unjust in whole because the administrative review board found no evidence of any misconduct and because he received an honorable discharge following the GOMOR.  He also requested that the OER in question be corrected without the unfavorable remarks of his rater and senior rater.

		(2)  On 1 September 2011, the DASEB denied the applicant's request to remove the GOMOR from his OMPF.  The DASEB ultimately concluded that there was "insufficient evidence of a clear and convincing nature to show the GOMOR is untrue or unjust."  However, the DASEB unanimously voted to 

remove two DA Forms 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Actions (FLAG)) from the Military Personnel Records Jacket of the applicant's OMPF.

		(3)  On 23 April 2012, the applicant petitioned the DASEB to transfer the GOMOR to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  He provided two OERs for the period of time between 2 February 2010 and 20 January 2012 to support his argument that the GOMOR had served its intended purpose.

		(4)  On 7 June 2012, the DASEB determined that "[t]he evidence presented does not provide substantial evidence that the [GOMOR] has served its intended purpose and that its transfer would be in the best interest of the Army."

		(5)  On 2 July 2013, the applicant requested reconsideration of the DASEB's previous denial.  He provided an additional OER to augment his argument that the GOMOR had served its intended purpose.

		(6)  On 20 December 2013, the DASEB rendered a decision on the request for reconsideration and determined that "there is insufficient evidence to justify removal or transfer of the unfavorable information to the restricted section of the AMHRR."

4.  Counsel's presentation of Law and Argument:  

	a.  AR 15-185, ABCMR, paragraph 2-9 states "The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence." The amount of proof required for a preponderance of the evidence is met if the evidence is more likely to be true than not true.  The actual quantum is difficult to define or categorize, but anything over 50%, including 50.001 %, meets the burden of proof for preponderance of the evidence.  Thus, if a proposition in dispute is 50.001% more likely than the opposing proposition, then the burden of proof for preponderance of the evidence has been satisfied.

	b.  Here, the 13 January 2011 administrative hearing board determined that there was no substantial evidence that the applicant engaged in fraternization with a junior enlisted Soldier.  If substantial evidence did not exist, it stands to reason that a simple majority of evidence, that is, something more than 50%, existed to prove that the applicant did not engage in an improper sexual relationship with a female junior enlisted Soldier.  Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the imposition of the GOMOR dated 21 October 2009 and the comments by his rater and senior rater in the contested OER.  Accordingly, the imposition of the GOMOR and the referred OER constituted an error and an injustice and this honorable Board should remove both from the applicant's OMPF.

	c.  AR 600-37, paragraph 7-2b(1), states that unfavorable documents may be appealed on the basis that their intended purpose has been served and their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  Should this honorable Board decide not to remove the GOMOR and the OER from the applicant's OMPF, he requests in the alternative that they be transferred from the performance folder to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  The intended purpose of both the GOMOR and the OER has been served:  The applicant was reprimanded and removed from his duties.  Since then, his service record bears no evidence whatsoever of any improper behavior.  

		(1)  For the OER dated 20100202 thru 20110120, the applicant's senior rater found him "fully qualified."  For the OER dated 20110121 thru 20120120, the applicant's rater evaluated his performance as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and the rater wrote that the applicant was an "excellent officer that has executed each mission to the highest degree."  The rater continued, "His technical skills, strong leadership and ability to juggle multiple high priority duties have paid great dividends to the brigade and supporting units.  [The applicant]...should be selected for Major now!"  The rater also wrote that the applicant had "Unlimited [Potential].  Promote immediately and place in the most demanding positions."  The applicant's senior rater found him "fully qualified" and wrote that he is an "outstanding officer willing to serve in any capacity as asked and required by his command.  He [represented] the 2/346th exceptionally well in his detachment to the 177th BDE.  He receives great reviews from the Soldiers he's worked with and always exhibited the highest of standards.  [The applicant] is an excellent officer and is prepared to take on better and greater leadership responsibilities."

   (2)  Finally, for the OER dated 20120121 thru 20130120, the applicant's 
rater evaluated his performance as "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and wrote that his "outstanding performance contributed significantly to the Mobilization and Demobilization process...[he] strives to make more meaningful and significant contributions to the betterment of the organization."  He continued, "during this time frame, the applicant was selected above his peers to serve as the company commander of A/1-346th Warrior Transition Company...[The applicant] should be allotted the opportunity to attend resident ILE [Intermediate-Level Education] immediately."  The applicant's rater wrote that he has "Unlimited Potential.  Promote immediately and place in the most demanding positions."  The applicant's senior rater found him "Best Qualified" and wrote that "Senior commanders commented repeatedly on his professionalism and dedication to the units and Soldiers.  The applicant is a sincere, devoted and dependable officer dedicated to mission success...Promote to Major and send to resident ILE."  Thus, the applicant clearly took the messages of the GOMOR and the OER to heart and focused on his duties with laser-like precision and attention to detail.  His record has been impeccable and unimpeachable.

		(3)  The applicant is no longer a member of the MSARNG, much less a member of the unit in which the female junior enlisted Soldier in question served. Most notably, the applicant received an honorable discharge from the MSARNG in 2011.  Thus, in the time between the alleged incident and the applicant's honorable discharge, he served with distinction and exceptional military character and the intended purpose of both the GOMOR and the OER has been served.  Additionally, the applicant is a promising officer with much needed and valuable skills, such that transfer of the GOMOR and the OER is in the best interest of the Army.

5.  Counsel provides:

* an 8-page legal brief
* GOMOR
* Federal Recognition Board findings and recommendations
* three OERs rendered for the period 2 October 2010 through 20 January 2013 (20101002 thru 20130120)
* a DA Form 67-10-2 (Field Grade Plate (O4 - O5; CW3 - CW5) OER) rendered for the period 21 January 2014 through 4 May 2014

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that while serving as an officer in the MSARNG, he was promoted to the rank of CPT on 5 February 2008.

2.  On 1 May 2009, while serving as a CPT in the MSARNG, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  He served in Kuwait/Iraq from 19 June 2009 through 5 March 2010.

3.  On 26 August 2009, an IO was appointed to investigate "allegations...concerning various types of sexual misconduct by officers and enlisted Soldiers."  The IO was tasked, in part, to investigate whether violations of AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14, had occurred or were occurring, specifically involving relations between officers and enlisted Soldiers in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Articles 92 and/or 134 (Fraternization).  Following the investigation, the IO found that the applicant had violated AR 600-20, paragraph 4-14(c)(2) (intimate or sexual relations ships between officers and enlisted personnel prohibited), and UCMJ Articles 92 and 134 by engaging in an improper sexual relationship and had engaged in sexual encounters on numerous occasions with a female private first class (PFC) in his quarters both at Camp Shelby, MS and at Q-West, Iraq.  Evidence considered during the AR 15-6 investigation included:

* information gathered from computers
* information gathered from telephones
* photographs
* crime scene sketches
* more than 40 sworn statements
* counseling statements
* policy letters
* First Army General Order 1, dated 19 December 2006

4.  On 21 October 2009, the applicant received a GOMOR from the Commanding General (CG), 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary), Joint Base Balad, Iraq, for engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier from June to August 2009.  Specifically, the imposing authority stated the reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure consistent with AR 600-37 and not as punishment pursuant to the UCMJ.  The CG advised the applicant that in accordance with AR 600-37, paragraph 3-4b, he was considering filing the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF and allowed the applicant 5 calendar days from receipt of the GOMOR to submit matters in rebuttal, extenuation and mitigation through his chain of command to the CG prior to making a filing decision.  The CG advised the applicant that failure to submit a response would be considered a waiver of this right.

	a.  On 21 October 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and elected to make a statement in his own behalf.  

	b.  On 26 October 2009, the applicant submitted a statement requesting that the GOMOR be placed in his local file.  He contended the allegations in the AR 15-6 investigation were false, untrue, and unfounded.  He believed the investigation was one-sided and the allegations placed his career in jeopardy.  

	c.  On 18 November 2009, after reviewing the GOMOR and the applicant's rebuttal statement, the CG directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF.

	d.  A review of the applicant's OMPF reveals that the GOMOR is filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.

5.  A review of the applicant's OMPF reveals that the contested OER, rendered for the period 1 May 2009 through 1 February 2010, does reflect the misconduct as described by the applicant's counsel above and is filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.  The OER shows that it was a referred report.  An attached Memorandum for Record, subject:  Refusal to Sign OER, [applicant's name], dated 16 July 2010, states the applicant was written a referred report and given the opportunity to rebut the referral with the suspense date of 6 July 2010.  The applicant received the certified letter at his home of record and received the OER via email at his Army Knowledge Online email address.  His response had not been received at the time of the memorandum and the appropriate remarks had been inserted in the senior rater portion of the OER.  The certified mail receipt is also attached.

6.  The applicant's record is void of any evidence either of a rebuttal or a Commander's Inquiry pertaining to his referred OER.

7.  On 2 June 2010, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the MSARNG in the rank/pay grade of CPT/O-3.

8.  The applicant's record contains a DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) which shows on 13 January 2011, an administrative hearing was conducted to determine whether the applicant's federal recognition should be withdrawn.  The action was based on the allegations of engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier.  

	a.  The standard of proof was that each finding of fact be supported by substantial evidence.  Section II (Sessions) of the DA Form 1574 shows that after 35 minutes of deliberation the board completed their findings and recommendations.

	b.  The board determined there was not substantial evidence that the applicant engaged in fraternization consisting of a sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier, and recommended that the applicant's federal recognition should be retained.  

	c.  The board proceedings are void of any indication of the specific evidence that the board considered prior to rendering findings and recommendations.

	d.  On 16 February 2011, the CG, First Army, approved the findings and recommendations of the board and determined that the applicant would retain his federal recognition.

9.  On 16 April 2011, the applicant completed a DD Form 368 (Request for Conditional Release) wherein he tendered his resignation from the ARNG and requested that it be accepted contingent upon actual appointment in the USAR.  His request for conditional release was approved on 19 May 2011. 

10.  On 22 May 2011, the applicant was honorably discharged from the MSARNG and assigned to a USAR TPU.

11.  National Guard Bureau Special Orders Number 159AR, dated 13 July 2011, show the applicant's federal recognition was withdrawn effective 22 May 2011 as a result of his transfer to the USAR.

12.  On 8 July 2011, the applicant filed a request with the DASEB to, in part, remove the GOMOR, dated 21 October 2009, from his OMPF.  The basis for his request was the fact that an official board had determined that he did not engage in an improper sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier.  After careful consideration, on 11 August 2011, the DASEB denied the removal of the GOMOR.  The board cited the applicant’s failure to provide evidence to show the GOMOR was untrue or unjust as justification to deny the removal.

13.  On 23 April 2012, the applicant filed a request with the DASEB to transfer the GOMOR, dated 21 October 2009, and the subject OER to the restricted folder of his OMPF.  The basis for his request was his contention that the GOMOR and OER had served their intended purpose because his subsequent OERs indicated an improvement in his performance and potential.  After careful consideration, on 7 June 2012, the DASEB, by unanimous vote, determined the overall merits of his case did not warrant the request relief and denied the transfer of the GOMOR and subject OER.  The board cited the applicant’s failure to provide evidence to show the GOMOR and OER had served their intended purpose or were untrue or unjust as justification to deny the removal.

14.  On 2 July 2013, the applicant once again filed a request with the DASEB to remove the GOMOR, dated 21 October 2009, from his OMPF.  The basis for his request was his contention that the allegation made against him for misconduct was fabricated and untrue.  Once again, he noted that a retention board determined there was no evidence that showed any misconduct ever occurred.  He also provided OERs that showed the dedication and leadership that he had displayed in the military had always been honorable and beyond reproach.  After careful consideration, on 5 December 2013, the DASEB, by unanimous vote, determined the overall merits of his case did not warrant the request relief and denied the transfer or removal of the GOMOR.  The board cited the applicant’s failure to provide evidence to show the GOMOR had served its intended purpose or was untrue or unjust as justification to deny the removal.
15.  Counsel provides four of the applicant's OERs rendered for the period 2 October 2010 through 20 January 2014 (20101002 thru 20140120) and a Field Grade Plate OER rendered for the period 21 January 2014 through 4 May 2014.  Each of these evaluation reports shows the applicant's raters and senior raters rendered favorable comments about his performance and potential for promotion and future service.  The applicant's Field Grade Plate OER indicates that he was selected for promotion to the rank/pay grade of major (MAJ)/O-4.

16.  Headquarters, United States Army Reserve Command, memorandum, subject:  Show Cause Recommendation, dated 28 July 2014, shows upon receiving the recommendation that the applicant be required to show cause, the Acting CG (ACG) initiated an involuntary separation action against him.  The applicant responded with evidence that he had previously been required to show cause for the same misconduct at a federal recognition board.  That board found that the applicant did not commit misconduct and recommended that he retain his federal recognition.  Therefore, the ACG closed the involuntary separation case against the applicant.

17.  AR 600-37 states 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.  

	a.  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.  

    b.  Paragraph 3-2c states that unfavorable information that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity.  These must be identified early and shown in those permanent official personnel records that are available to personnel managers and selection board members for use in making such personnel decisions that may result in selecting Soldiers for positions of public trust and responsibility, or vesting such persons with authority over others.  Other unfavorable character traits of a permanent nature should be similarly recorded.

18.  AR 600-37 states that the DASEB will transfer from the performance to the restricted folder of the AMHRR those administrative letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure that are determined upon appeal to have served their intended purpose, when such transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.

19.  AR 623-3 prescribes the policy for completing evaluation reports and associated support forms that are the basis for the Army's Evaluation Reporting System. 

   a.  Paragraph 1-11 states that when it is brought to the attention of a commander that a report rendered by a subordinate or a subordinate command may be illegal, unjust, or otherwise in violation of this regulation, that commander will conduct an inquiry into the matter.  The Commander's Inquiry will be confined to matters related to the clarity of the evaluation report, the facts contained in the report, the compliance of the evaluation with policy and procedures established by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and the conduct of the rated Soldier and members of the rating chain. 
   
   b.  Paragraph 3-26 (Referred evaluation reports) states that, in pertinent part, any report with negative remarks about the rated officer's Values or Leader Attributes/Skills/Action in rating official's narrative evaluations will be referred to the rated officer by the senior rater for acknowledgment and comment before being forwarded to HQDA.

   c.  Paragraph 3-28 states that the referral process ensures the rated Soldier knows that his OER contains negative or derogatory information and affords him the opportunity to sign the evaluation report and submit comments, if desired. 
   
   d.  Paragraph 4-7 states that evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of an officer are presumed to be administratively correct, 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 applicant must produce evidence that establishes 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 applicant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that an AR 15-6 investigation, which included evidence in the form of sworn testimony from numerous commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and junior Soldiers, resulted in the determination that the applicant was guilty of engaging in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier.  Evidence also shows the applicant received a GOMOR and adverse OER as a result of this investigation.

2.  The applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the ARNG shortly after receiving the GOMOR and OER.

3.  An administrative hearing was conducted to determine whether the applicant's federal recognition in the ARNG should be withdrawn.  After 35 minutes of deliberation and review of unspecified evidence, the administrative board determined there was not substantial evidence that the applicant engaged in fraternization consisting of a sexual relationship with a junior enlisted Soldier and recommended that the applicant's federal recognition should be retained.  

4.  The applicant also provided a memorandum showing the ACG, United States Army Reserve Command, terminated involuntary separation action against the applicant based upon the fact that a federal recognition retention board found that the applicant did not commit misconduct and recommended that he retain his federal recognition. 

5.  The applicant and his counsel argue that the GOMOR and subject OER should either be removed from his OMPF or transferred to the restricted folder of his OMPF based upon the findings of the administrative federal recognition retention board.  Neither the applicant nor his counsel provided the evidence considered in the administrative board's proceedings.  Additionally, neither the DASEB nor the ABCMR is bound by the findings of a lower-level administrative board or the United States Army Reserve Command's decision to terminate involuntary separation action, particularly in the absence of the evidence considered by the board.

6.  The facts that the applicant's subsequent OERs indicate that his performance in the ARNG and USAR has been successful and that he has been selected for promotion to MAJ/O-4 are duly noted.

7.  AR 600-37 allows the DASEB to transfer administrative letters of reprimand from the performance to the restricted section of the AMHRR after determining that "the intended purpose has been served."  The applicant did not submit any statements supporting his request for removal or transfer of the GOMOR, specifically, from the imposing authority who, based upon evidence provided in the AR 15-6 investigation, determined that there was basis for the administration of a GOMOR and subsequently decided to file the GOMOR in the applicant's OMPF.  In the absence of input from the imposing authority, there is no way to determine whether the GOMOR has served its intended purpose.



8.  Furthermore, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The imposing authority was required to make a determination on whether to issue a GOMOR based on the preponderance of evidence.  Once properly filed in the official record, the applicant is required to show by clear and convincing evidence that the GOMOR is untrue and/or unjust to substantiate removal.

9.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was afforded the opportunity to voice his concerns via comments to the referred OER or even to seek redress via a Commander's Inquiry, but chose not to use those avenues.  

10.  There is no evidence available and neither the applicant’s attorney nor the applicant have provided any evidence to show the ratings and comments listed on the contested report are inaccurate, unjust, and/or are not consistent with the applicant's demonstrated performance of duty during the rating period.  Therefore, there is no basis to grant the relief requested.  

11.  The applicant and counsel have provided no evidence to show the statements listed on the GOMOR or the contested OER were untrue or unjust.  Therefore, in the absence of more compelling evidence, there is no basis to remove either of these documents from his OMPF or to move them to the restricted portion of his OMPF.

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)                                         AR20140003111



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1