IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015983 


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 General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) Memorandum of Reprimand (MOR), dated 7 December 2011, be transferred to the restricted file of his official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states he was stupid, really stupid.  He made a number of inexcusable decisions and he accepts and takes full responsibility for his actions to date.  

   a.  He sincerely believes the GCMCA MOR, dated 7 December 2011, has served it intended purpose.  He realizes there are higher expectations of him and he must carry himself in a manner that upholds the values and standards of the Army.  His selfishness to deceive others and lack of judgment negatively affected his unit cohesion and was simply stupid and pointless.  He understands that he made an intolerable and unacceptable mistake as a commissioned officer, leader, and professional.  
   
   b.  Over the course of the last 3 years, he has devoted himself to acting in a manner befitting the U.S. Army and the of oath office he swore upon as a commissioned officer.  His service and dedication since receiving the GCMCA MOR has been exemplary.  He has committed no additional infractions and he continues to work hard to achieve, uphold excellence, and restore his reputation and image.
   
   c.  Nearly 3 years have elapsed since his event.  Although he has slowly continued to regain the trust and respect of his superiors, every day has been a fight.  He is constantly reminded of his mistake and his name and career have been significantly blemished.  
   
   d.  He was considered for selection to the Long Term Health Education and Training program for fiscal year (FY) 2015, but was not selected.  He was recommended by Brigadier General (BG) F to participate in one of the offered Department of the Army Strategic Broadening Seminars this summer, but was not selected for participation.  He was passed over for three company command opportunities from 2011 through 2013.  By no one's fault but his own, he sincerely believes those decisions were made due to the GCMCA MOR he received on 7 December 2011.  
   
   e.  He has learned he must not only conduct himself at all times with appropriate decorum, but he must ensure his subordinates, colleagues, and superiors adhere to that same standard.  He will use this experience as a lesson learned in order to mentor future and current junior leaders about the standards and conduct that must be applied to all individuals who work for or are affiliated with this organization.
   
   f.  Despite the GCMCA MOR, he continues to serve his country and carry on his daily obligations and responsibilities to the best of his ability.  Although he is exceedingly embarrassed, and disappointed beyond belief of his actions, he has not allowed this situation to negatively affect his work performance or the performance of the Soldiers he leads.

3.  The applicant provides:

* two DA Forms 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report) (OER) 
* 10 reference letters
* Certificate of completion of Jumpmaster Course 1-13, dated 31 October 2012
* a memorandum, dated 12 March 2014, from the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB)

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 5 May 2006, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), Medical Services Corps.  He was ordered to active duty, effective 29 October 2006, for 6 years.

2.  On 10 May 2007, an Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers (IO) and Boards of Officers) investigation revealed that between 
1 February 2007 and 3 May 2007 the applicant sent inappropriate text messages and a letter to Sergeant (SGT) C, SGT H, Private First Class (PFC) J, and Private2 (PV2) G (female Soldiers).  

   a.  The IO stated the allegations against the applicant were substantial,  recommended he be immediately removed from his company command position and unit, and recommended that Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) action be taken on the matter.

   b.  The IO stated there may be underlying reasons why the applicant would allegedly commit these offenses against more than one NCO/Soldier and show a consistent pattern of possibly fabricating his story to cover the issue.  

3.  On 20 July 2007, he received a General Officer Letter of Reprimand (GOMOR) from Major General (MG) C, Commander, 2nd Infantry Division.

	a.  An Army Regulation 15-6 investigation revealed that between 1 February  and 3 May 2007 he had sent inappropriate text messages and letter to SGT C, SGT H, PFC J, and PV2 G (female Soldiers).  When given an order by Captain (CPT) M not to contact any of these Soldiers, he disobeyed this order and called PV2 G into his office to deny that he had sent her text messages.

	b.  As a commissioned officer he was expected to maintain and adhere to the highest standards of professionalism and personal conduct.  His behavior and inappropriate communications with lower enlisted Soldiers and noncommissioned officers was a violation of the trust and confidence repose in him as a Soldier and an officer.  His poor conduct was a discredit to himself, his unit, the officer corps, and the United States Army.  The nature of this behavior is greatly aggravated by the fact that he was in command when he did these actions.  

   c.  MG C stated he would not tolerate further misconduct of this or any other nature.

4.  On 5 September 2007, MG C reviewed and considered the GOMOR, the filing recommendations, and documents supporting the reprimand.  He directed the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF.

5.  On 27 November 2007, he was promoted to first lieutenant.

6.  On 17 January 2008, he was awarded the Parachutist Badge, effective 
25 January 2008 or upon completion of Airborne training.

7.  On 17 November 2009, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB) approved the applicant's request to transfer the GOMOR, dated 27 July 2007, to the applicant's restricted file of his OMPF because the intended purpose had been served and it was in the best interest of the Army.

8.  On 22 June 2010, he was promoted to CPT.

9.  On 9 August 2011,  an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was conducted concerning the applicant's false official statements in and about June 2011 regarding his attendance at the Jumpmaster Course in May 2011 and Practical Work in the Aircraft (PWAC) on 23 June 2011.  Events suggested that the applicant lied about his status regarding the written test, JMPI (jumpmaster personnel inspection), and PWAC. The chain of command wanted to know what the applicant did during the time they believed he was in training.  

   a.  The IO determined the following facts:

		(1)  The applicant enrolled in the 9 May 2011 Jumpmaster Course.  He failed the written test twice and was dismissed from the course on 17 May 2011.  He did not complete JMPI.  He was given a slip to re-attend the Jumpmaster Course within 90 days.

		(2)  The applicant indicated to Major (MAJ) A, MAJ W, and Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) B that he had completed the Jumpmaster Course, including the written test and JMPI.  He alleged that he was only waiting to complete PWAC.

		(3)  The applicant did not attend PWAC on 23 June 2011 as he told 
CPT S, MAJ W, and LTC B he had done.

		(4)  Brigade Combat Team orders assigned the applicant to Brigade Support Battalion (BSB) effective 16 May 2011.

		(5)  Personnel from brigade headquarters did not recall seeing the applicant at work 17-30 May.  MAJ A believed he was in the Jumpmaster Course during that time.  CPT K recalls him at work during that timeframe but it was difficult to pinpoint specific dates.

	b.  The IO found:

		(1)  The applicant intentionally lied about completing the first four phases of the Jumpmaster Course and PWAC on 23 June 2011.

		(2)  In order to make his lie believable, the applicant conducted only those activities that would not lead to questions about his Jumpmaster status.  The IO assessed the applicant did not assume his regular duties nor work regular hours during the times when he would have been in Jumpmaster had he not been dismissed.

		(3)  The applicant failed to take responsibility for his status in the course by neglecting to inform his chain of command.  Then when questioned about it in June, the applicant lied to cover his earlier omission.

	c.  The IO recommended:

		(1)  The applicant receive an administrative reprimand

		(2)  The applicant take some time to repair on staff before being considered for command of any company.

		(3)  The applicant should be charged leave for the work days on which he failed to perform his regular work responsibilities.  Unless more evidence can be provided he believed the applicant should be charged a total of 7 days leave: 
18-20 May, 23-25 May, and 23 June 2011.

		(3)  The command may want to consider the applicant a higher risk Soldier until this matter is resolved.  

10.  On 27 August 2011, the Secretary of the Army designated the Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division (Rear) (Provisional) as a GCMCA.  On 
14 September 2011, Colonel (COL) M assumed command of 82nd Airborne Division (Rear) (Provisional).

11.  On 29 September 2011, the applicant was ordered to proceed on or about 
7 October 2011, for assignment to the Headquarters and Headquarters Company Rear Detachment, 82nd Airborne Division in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan.  The deployment was not to exceed 365 days.

12.  On 7 December 2011, he received a GCMCA MOR from the Commander, 82nd Airborne Division (Rear)(Provisional).

	a.  He was reprimanded for making numerous false official statements in and about June 2011, regarding his attendance at the Jumpmaster Course in May 2011 and PWAC on 23 June 2011.  He falsely stated to LTC B, MAJ A, and 
MAJ W that he had completed the Jumpmaster Course in May 2011, when in fact, as he knew, he had twice failed the written test during the course and as a consequence he was dismissed early from the course on 17 May 2011.  The applicant also stated to LTC B, MAJ W, and CPT S, that he attended PWAC on 23 June 2011, when in fact he did not attend.  These statements regarding attendance at PWAC were in furtherance of his continued deception regarding having completed the Jumpmaster Course.

	b.  As an officer in the 82nd Airborne Division, he was expected to carry himself in a manner that upholds the values, esteem, and requirements of the Division.  His willingness to deceive others and lack of judgment adversely affects unit cohesion and readiness.  Further his lack of responsibility, integrity, and honesty to inform his chain of command about his failure of the Jumpmaster Course brings discredit upon himself, the officer corps, and the Division.  This was inexcusable and unacceptable as a leader and a professional in the organization.  Incidents of this nature may result in more serious action being taken against him.  

	c.  The reprimand was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

	d.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GCMCA MOR and indicated he would submit matters on his own behalf.

13.  On 15 December 2011, he was authorized to wear the German Armed Forces Parachutist Badge.

14.  On 19 December 2011, the applicant submitted a request that his GCMCA MOR be filed locally instead of in his OMPF.  The applicant stated:

	a.  He accepted and took full responsibility for his actions to date.  He sincerely believed this had been an unfortunate mistake on his behalf and this learning experience had brought tremendous shame on him.  His lack of judgment, integrity, and honesty to inform his chain of command of his failure brings significant discredit on himself, his family, the officer corps, and the 82nd Airborne Division.  His characterization was thoughtless and stupid, and for that he was sorry.  He understood that he made an inexcusable mistake which was completely unacceptable as a leader and professional.  

	b.  He has had the opportunity to reflect and think of all the negative aspects as a result of his actions.  He has devoted himself to acting in a manner befitting the U.S. Army and the officer corps.  His service to date, outside of his blunder had been exemplary.  He had not and does not plan on committing additional infractions and he is a dedicated paratrooper who lives and abides by the Army values and simply made a poor lack of judgment and decision making.  He continues to work firmly to achieve and maintain excellence and prays he is able to continue to serve his country to the greatest extent possible by remaining in the U.S. Army.

	c.  When he was released from the Jumpmaster course early he felt he had let a lot of people down, including himself.  He felt defeated and didn't know how to convey his short comings.  These actions and emotions weighed heavy on him, lying to subordinates to make them think/believe he had passed JMPI and was awaiting PWAC.  There was no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance for his actions.  It was a dreadful choice of actions on his behalf and he will forever be affected by his lack of judgment, honesty, and poor decision making during this particular incident.

	d.  If given the opportunity, he will fulfill his potential and become the leader, mentor, and coach he is capable of being.  This experience, although extremely embarrassing and painful, represents an opportunity for growth and he fully intends to use it as such.  Despite this situation and outcome, he will continue to serve his country and carry out his daily obligations to the best of his ability.

	e.  He would be remiss if he didn't formally apologize to COL A, LTC B, and MAJ W.  He knows they are extremely disappointed in his actions and words cannot express the amount of guilt, shame, and disappointment he feels.

15.  On 19 January 2012, the GCMCA, after reviewing the case file, the administrative reprimand, the applicant's rebuttal matter, and the filing recommendations of his chain of command, directed the applicant's GCMCA MOR be filed in his OMPF.

16.  On 22 June 2012, he received an OER for the period 2 June 2011 - 1 June 2012. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Task Force Spartan in Afghanistan as the Health Service Officer. 

	a.  He was rated "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" by his rater and "Best Qualified" by his senior rater.

	b.  His acts of misconduct and his GCMCA MOR were not mentioned in the OER.

17.  As a result of his deployment to Afghanistan, he was awarded the:

* Non-Article 5 NATO Medal - 15 January - 30 September 2012
* Army Commendation Medal - 27 January - 15 September 2012

18.  On 31 October 2012, he successfully completed the Jumpmaster Course at Fort Bragg, NC. 

19.  On 30 November 2012, he received an OER for the period 2 June 2012 - 
8 November 2012.  He was assigned to Company C, 782nd BSB, Fort Bragg, NC.  He was rated "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" by his rater and "Best Qualified" by his senior rater.

20.  On 20 June 2013, he was awarded the Senior Parachutist Badge.

21.  On 12 March 2014, the DASEB denied his request to transfer his GCMCA MOR, dated 7 December 2011, to the restricted file of his OMPF.

22.  He received two OERs during the period from 9 November 2012 - 4 June 2014.  He was assigned to Company C, 782nd BSB as the Company Commander.  On both OERs he was rated "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" by his rater and "Best Qualified" by his senior rater.

23.  On 8 April 2015, he was ordered to proceed on 2 June 2015 for deployment to Kuwait in support of Operation Inherent Resolve for a period not to exceed 
304 days.

24.  On 29 May 2015, he was awarded the Master Parachutist Badge.

25.  The applicant provided 10 reference letters.

	a.  On 4 February 2014, BG A recommended approval of the applicant's request.  BG A was his brigade commander and had recommended the GCMCA MOR originally be placed in his OMPF.  His initial conclusion, based on findings, was that the applicant had a character flaw inconsistent with Army values, even though his duty performance had been outstanding.  Over the past 2 years the applicant had demonstrated redemption and has mentally and emotionally modified his behavior and approach to life's challenges.  He feels the applicant can and will sustain behavior in keeping with Army values and morality.

	b.  On 1 August 2014, MAJ C supported the applicant's request to move his GCMCA MOR to his restricted file.  He has dedicated himself to performing to the highest standard and establishing a no quit attitude on himself and the Army.  He had chosen to accept responsibility and continue to contribute to the Army as a leader and professional.  It was apparent he internalized the lessons learned from his previous mistake and was continually striving to better himself and those around him.  His current performance and attitude indicates that the GCMCA MOR had the desired effect intended and as the officer he is today would never repeat the previous mistakes he has made in the past.

	c.  On 1 August 2014, LTC T, his battalion commander, recommended the applicant's GCMCA MOR be moved to his restricted file.  He recently hired him for his second company command.  He was impressed by the applicant's professionalism and overall leadership potential.  He demonstrated the upmost in professionalism and integrity when he had the courage to admit the error in judgment he made in 2011.  His true nature is reflected by his impeccable record prior to and most notable his actions since then.  He strongly believed this incident had solidified the applicant's commitment to be always professional, serve selflessly, and maintain the Army values even in difficult times and situations.

	d.  On 4 August 2014, MAJ P, the Battalion Operations Officer, recommended the applicant's GCMCA MOR be moved to his restricted file.  He can attest to the applicant's high standards for professional behavior and his exceptional leadership.  The applicant has a widespread reputation amongst leaders, peers, and subordinates as being an exemplary and conscientious officer.  As Bravo Company Commander, in just 2 months, he had exceeded the expectations of leadership and had been frequently commended for his work ethic, proficiency, and pro-active leadership style.  The applicant was very forthcoming about his mistakes and he had frequently spoken about his personal commitment to growth and improvement that have directly resulted from this incident.  His consistent and exceptional performance to date serves as a testament to his commitment.

	e.  On 5 August 2014, LTC T recommended the applicant's GCMCA MOR be moved to his restricted file.  He served with the applicant during his assignment as the C Company Commander for 782nd BSB.  He really stood out amongst his peers as a focused leader who upheld the highest military standards, demonstrated superb judgment, and exhibited a wealth of knowledge expected of senior leaders.  He trusts him implicitly and welcomes the opportunity to serve with him again.  He firmly believes the applicant has successfully overcome the initial reasons for the placement of the GCMCA MOR and should absolutely be retained on active duty.  

	f.  On 6 August 2014, COL B, Commander, 1st Brigade Combat Team, recommended the applicant's GCMCA MOR be moved to his restricted file.  He was one of the top two Medical Service Officers he had seen and one of the most talented junior officers with whom he had served in his career spanning over 
20 years.  The applicant had repeatedly demonstrated his military initiatives and god given leadership abilities on countless fronts.  There was no occasion in which he had not been extremely satisfied in his ability to accomplish the mission.  He discussed with the applicant the details and mistakes he had made which had placed him in this particular situation numerous times.  Regardless of his single lapse in judgment, he staked his own reputation as an officer because he knew his exceptional character will continue to drive him to learn from this experience in order to be a better officer.

	g.  On 7 August 2014, COL M, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg Command Inspector General, continued his strongest support and approval to move the applicant's GCMCA MOR, dated 7 December 2011, to his restricted file.  As previously stated on 10 February 2014, he was the GCMCA who directed the GCMCA MOR be filed in his OMPF.  However, he also clearly established his beliefs and complete support that the GCMCA MOR had served its intended purpose and petitioned those thoughts to the DASEB earlier this year.  His justification for petitioning the board still stands.  The GCMA MOR has served its intended purpose and this officer should by all accounts be afforded to continue to serve.  Over the past 3 years the applicant has clearly demonstrated his talent and overall potential and should be allowed to continue to serve in the Army.  There is no other officer more deserving of a second chance and who has exemplified perseverance and elite leadership over the years as he has.

	h.  On 15 August 2014, COL B recommended the applicant's GCMCA MOR be moved to his restricted file.  In his opinion, this particular lapse in judgment was definitely recoverable for the applicant and should not continue to hinder his professional career.  The applicant fully understands the seriousness of his actions.  He took complete responsibility and demonstrated sincere remorse for his actions.  The applicant is a better officer and leader today as evident by his unmatched performance over the past 3 years.  There is no officer more deserving and one who has earned such respect from his superiors for a second chance.

	i.  On 15 August 2014, BG F, Deputy Commanding General - Support, 82nd Airborne Division, recommended the applicant's GCMCA MOR be moved to his restricted file.  He fully endorsed the applicant as his number one choice for selection into one of the Chief of Staff, Army's (CSA's) Summer Strategic Broadening Seminars (FY 2014).  He was saddened with the notification he was not selected as a candidate.  The applicant was a brilliant and adaptive leader.  Faced with extreme adversity, he has learned from his past mistakes and has further committed himself to upholding and living the Army values as well as ensuring others adhere to those same standards.  Rated as the number 2 and 3 company commander out of 30 is phenomenal achievement and accomplishment, and clearly separates him from his peers.  The applicant has demonstrated by his actions and perseverance over the past 3 years that he has learned from his previous mistake.  The GCMCA MOR has served its intended purpose and it is in the best interest of the Army to move to the restricted file of his OMPF.

   j.  On 28 August 2014, MG N, Commander, 82nd Airborne Division, provided a memorandum for the record in support of the applicant's GCMCA MOR appeal. 

		(1)  He spoke in great lengths with BG F, and LTC J, as well as read and reviewed every memorandum in support of the applicant's request for his GCMCA MOR, dated 7 December 2011, to be moved to his restricted file in his OMPF.  Not only does he fully and strongly support the transfer, MG N also endorsed full removal of the GCMCA MOR from the applicant's OMPF.

		(2)  While he commended COL M's judgment during his appointment as Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division (Rear) in 2011, he disagreed with his decision in the filing of the GCMCA MOR assigned to the applicant.  While he agreed there should have been some form of punishment for the applicant's actions, he had also observed more significant and extreme infractions concerning company grade officers with far less consequences in his 
30 years of service.

		(3)  His stance on this particular matter is clear, remove or transfer the GCMCA MOR concerning the applicant to the restricted portion of his OMPF and afford this officer the opportunity to continue to excel and be retained in the U.S. Army.  

26.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; to ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and to ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files.

	a.  Unfavorable information that should be filed in official personnel files includes indications of substandard leadership ability, promotion potential, morals, and integrity.  These traits must be identified early and shown in permanent official personnel records that are available to personnel managers and selection board members for use in making 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.

	b.  Once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority.  Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF.  Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered.

	c.  Only letters of reprimand, admonition, or censure may be the subject of an appeal for transfer to the restricted section of the OMPF.  Such documents may be appealed on the basis of proof that their intended purpose has been served and that their transfer would be in the best interest of the Army.  The burden of proof rests with the recipient to provide substantial evidence that these conditions have been met.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant previously received a GOMOR on 20 July 2007 from MG C, Commander, 2nd Infantry Division.  On 17 November 2009, the DASEB approved the transfer of this GOMOR to his restricted file.  His GCMCA MOR, dated 7 December 2011, is the second instance wherein he violated the trust and confidence reposed in him as a Soldier and an officer in the U.S. Army.

2.  The available evidence indicates the information contained in the GCMCA MOR is accurate and that the GCMCA MOR was properly imposed in compliance with applicable regulations and is properly filed in his OMPF.  

3.  He took responsibility for his actions and apologized for allowing the situation to undermine his reputation as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army at the time the GCMCA MOR was imposed.  

4.  On his OER for the period 2 June 2011 - 1 June 2012, covering the period of his misconduct, he was rated "Best Qualified" with a recommendation for promotion.  There is no mention of his GCMCA MOR, dated 7 December 2011, in this OER.

5.  Three OERs received after his GCMCA MOR for covering the period from 
2 June 2012 - 4 June 2014 show him "Best Qualified" with recommendations for promotion.

6.  He submitted 10 letters of support from 1 MG, 2 BGs, 3 COLs, 2 LTCs, and 
2 MAJs.  These officers attested to the applicant's work ethic, professionalism, knowledge, dedication accomplishments, promotion potential, and overall job performance.  They all stated the GCMA MOR had served its intended purpose and supported his request to move his GCMCA MOR to his restricted file of his OMPF.  The officers, including the imposing officer COL M, stated the applicant deserved a second chance.

7.  His efforts to overcome his act of indiscretion are noteworthy.  However, 
when the DASEB transferred his GOMOR, dated 20 July 2007, to his restricted file on 17 November 2009 it would be considered as giving the officer a second chance.  He then received his GCMCA MOR on 7 December 2011, just under 
2 years of being given a second chance by the DASEB.  As such, the GCMCA MOR is material a promotion board should consider when comparing his records against those of his peers who do not have any misconduct documented in their records.

8.  In view of the applicant having received a GOMOR and a GCMA MOR within a 4-year period, the GOMOR having been moved to his restricted file in 2009, it would not be in the best interest of the Army to now move his GCMA MOR to his restricted file.

9.  There is an insufficient basis to move his GCMA MOR, dated 7 December 2011, to the restricted file of his OMPF at this time.

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)                                         AR20140015983





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015983



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1