IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  25 August 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140017071 


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 relief-for-cause Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER), covering the period 1 July through 6 October 2011, from his official military personnel file (OMPF).

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  His request is based on administrative and substantive inaccuracies including, but not necessarily limited to, material error, inaccuracy, and injustice.

	b.  In June 2009, the Rio Grande Recruiting Company conducted an investigation of alleged recruiting improprieties.  At that time, all potentially-involved Soldiers were flagged.

	c.  In June 2010, the investigating officer (IO) for the Army Regulation         15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers) investigation completed his report that substantiated allegations against the applicant.  The applicant was notified of the findings and was provided an opportunity to submit a rebuttal.  After reviewing the applicant's rebuttal, his battalion commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) E, concluded the preponderance of evidence did not prove the applicant had committed a recruiting impropriety and recommended the case be closed as unsubstantiated.  LTC E recommended retraining on the provisions of U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) Regulation 601-45 (Recruiting Improprieties Policies and Procedures) and the issuance of a brigade memorandum of concern, due to the number of allegations involving this particular recruiting station.
	d.  On 6 August 2010, the brigade commander, Colonel (COL) H, reviewed the investigation findings and concluded the preponderance of evidence did not substantiate recruiting improprieties by the applicant.  COL H closed the case against the applicant as "unsubstantiated" and returned the investigation report and findings to the battalion commander.  

	e.  On or around 28 August 2010, the applicant's flag was removed and on or around 4 October 2010, he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) by the USAREC Commander, Major General (MG) C. 

	f.  On 29 November 2010, the applicant received permanent change of station (PCS) orders that reassigned him to another USAREC battalion.  On                 12 December 2010, he received an NCOER, wherein he was rated "among the best."  

      (1)  If the investigation was not closed, his flag would not have been lifted and he would not have been allowed to PCS.  Allowing him to PCS when the investigation was apparently not closed had a material adverse impact on his rights because the case was ultimately handled much later by a later USAREC Commander, MG M, who was not the appointing authority authorized to take action on his case per Army Regulation 15-6, paragraph 2-3a (Action of the appointing authority/Basis of decision).  
      
      (2)  MG M was also not familiar with the details of the investigation or his response, nor was he aware that lesser adverse actions had been taken against Soldiers similarly situated who did not PCS.  He was the only Soldier who received a relief-for-cause NCOER, which is unfair and unjust.  

	g.  On 4 February 2011, MG C issued a memorandum pertaining to the investigation.  He found the allegations against the applicant and three other Soldiers substantiated; however, he returned the investigation report and findings to the brigade commander for action.  No further action took place.  MG C's memorandum does not indicate whether he reviewed the applicant's rebuttal when making his determination.

	h.  On 15 July 2011, MG M directed the applicant receive a relief-for-cause NCOER.   MG M did not follow referral procedures in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System), paragraph 3-55c, when providing the applicant with notification of his determination.  

	i.  On 20 December 2011, the applicant was selected for promotion to the rank/grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8.  However, on 20 November 2012, he was removed from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 MSG Promotion Selection List, due to the relief-for-cause NCOER he previously received.  

	j.  On 4 June 2013, he petitioned the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB) for removal of the relief-for-cause NCOER.  However, on 29 August 2013, the ESRB denied his request.

   k.  He respectfully requests the NCOER be removed due to the prejudicial delays and errors in the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation determinations.  The delays and errors impacted his ability to offer constructive comments to MG M and his rating officials, and impacted the results of any potential Commander's Inquiry due to the passage of time.  If the Board finds it otherwise, the thru date on the subject NCOER should be 15 July 2011, the date the relief was directed.

	l.  The report must be signed at any time during the closing or the following month of the report; however, the rating chain signed it between 15 November 2011 (almost 5 months after the required timeline) and 1 March 2012 (almost      7 months after the required timeline).  These delays had a material impact on his ability to effectively address his concerns with the contents, fairness, and overall suitability of the NCOER.  These prejudicial delay should not be condoned or encourage by allowing the status quo in the matter to stand.

	m.  The ratings and comments were made due to an investigation determination that was made without following the Army Regulation 15-6 referral procedures.  He should have been given an additional opportunity to provide a response to MG M's notification of adverse action referencing the NCOER.  Therefore, the subject NCOER was directed in violation of the minimum safeguards discussed in Army Regulation 15-6.

	n.  In violation of DA Pamphlet 623-3, (Evaluation Reporting System), Table 3-3, (Duty Description for DA Form 2166-8 (NCOER)), the rater failed to explain the reason for omitting counseling dates and stated the he was verbally counseled, which he has no recollection of.  In addition, he had already been reassigned to Fort Stewart, Georgia.

	o.  The prejudicial delays in the adverse action determination allowed him to PCS and be removed from his previous brigade commander, who did not recommend a relief for cause NCOER.  That action was unfair and unjust because it caused him to receive a harsher adverse action than similarly situated Soldiers.  Out of 4 Soldiers involved in the incident, he was the only Soldier that received a relief-for-cause NCOER.  The other Soldiers involved only received a Memorandum of Concern by the 5th Recruiting Brigade commander, which was directed by MG C, the previous USAREC commander.  
	p.  Fairness and justice would be served if he would be treated in a manner commensurate with similar Soldiers, rather than being treated harsher due to an administrative decision out of his control that resulted in his PCS.  

	q.  The ratings and comments that were ultimately recorded in his NCOER were based upon an investigation that was completed a full year prior to the NCOER being issued to him.  Prior to the negative NCOER, he received an MSM signed by MG C and an NCOER in which he was rated "among the best."  

	r.  The ratings and comments are based on a substantially delayed adverse action taken by MG M, which did not adhere to the Army Regulation 15-6 referral procedures in accordance with Army Regulation 623-3.  MG M also did not have knowledge of the lesser actions taken against the other Soldiers involved and also without full knowledge that he had received an MSM from MG C following the completion of the investigation.  Further, the ratings and comments in the NCOER are not warranted, supported, or justified as discussed by those intimately familiar with his performance.  Third-party statements on his behalf are included with this appeal.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Enlisted Record Brief
* Army Regulation 15-6 Report of Investigation (pages 1 through 3,           19 through 26, and 54 through 55) and allied documents 
* NCOER for the period 1 April 2009 through 31 March 2010
* USAREC Form 713-1 (Notification and Rebuttal of Adverse Action), dated 16 June 2010
* USAREC Form 713-1, dated 20 July 2010
* memorandum from the applicant, subject:  Rebuttal of Allegations, dated  4 June 2010
* memorandum, subject:  Report of Investigation, 4K7W/001, dated             6 August 2010
* DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (FLAG)), dated 20 August 2010
* DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award), dated 23 September 2010
* reassignment orders, dated 29 November 2010
* NCOER for the period 1 April through 30 November 2010
* memorandum, subject:  Recruiting Impropriety (4K70/001), [applicant's name], dated 4 February 2011
* memorandum, subject:  Relief for Cause Report Directed by an Official Other Than Rater or Senior Rater, dated 15 July 2011
* memorandum, subject:  Notification of Adverse Administrative Action, dated 15 July 2011
* NCOER for the period 1 December 2010 through 30 June 2011
* memorandum, subject:  Promotion Status, dated 20 December 2011
* NCOER for the period 1 July through 6 November 2011
* memorandum, subject:  Headquarters Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board (STAB), [applicant's name], dated 8 June 2012
* DA Form 268, dated 8 June 2012
* U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Interactive Web Response System Evaluation Reports Look Up
* email covering the period 12 February-18 July 2011
* several emails for the period 10 January - 29 February 2012 
* three third-party statements of support

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7.  His date of rank is 1 February 2007.

2.  On or about 24 September 2009, Headquarters, U.S. Army 5th Recruiting Brigade appointed an investigating officer (IO) in the rank of major to find answers to the following:

	a.  Whether any recruiting personnel assigned to the Rio Grande Recruiting Company arranged for "ringers" (imposters) to take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) examination for the actual applicants in violation of USAREC Regulations 601-45.

	b.  Whether any recruiting personnel assigned to the Rio Grande Recruiting Company possessed or provided applicants, by any means, qualification test materials, versions of the ASVAB, or locally produced testing or testing aids in violation of USAREC Regulations 601-45.

	c.  Any other violations of USAREC 601-45 and any other matters deemed appropriate.

3.  On 4 March 2010, the IO provided a memorandum detailing the findings of his investigation.  However, based on the unavailability of the entire memorandum, the detailed findings regarding the applicant are unknown.  

4.  On 2 June 2010, his battalion commander prepared a USAREC Form 713-1, wherein he notified the applicant that as a result of a review of the report of investigation and allied material, it was determined that the applicant knowingly allowed grossly negligent acts in violation of regulation and policy that resulted in numerous fraudulent enlistments.  The applicant signed the document and indicated he would submit rebuttal matters.  

5.  On 16 June 2010, the applicant's battalion commander signed the USAREC Form 713-1 and indicated that a rebuttal had been submitted.  The battalion commander recommended that the case be closed as "unsubstantiated."  He further stated:  "There is not a preponderance of evidence to prove [the applicant] committed a recruiting impropriety.  However, I recommend retraining on [Army Regulation] 601-45 and [Army Regulation] 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program)."

6.  The brigade commander signed the DA Form 713-1 and indicated that the preponderance of evidence did not substantiate the applicant knowingly allowed grossly negligent acts to occur in his station.  He concurred with the battalion commander on appropriate disposition, and he directed the case be closed as unsubstantiated for recruiting improprieties by the applicant.  

7.  On 6 August 2010, the brigade commander provided a memorandum informing the USAREC commander that there was not a preponderance of evidence to substantiate a recruiting impropriety against the applicant and other NCOs.  He stated "this case is closed as unsubstantiated for recruiting improprieties by the recruiters listed in para 2a [including the applicant], and substantiated for recruiting improprieties by the recruiters listed in para 2b [applicant not included].  Disposition is returned to the battalion commander."

8.  A DA Form 268 shows the applicant's FLAG was removed effective 20 August 2010, because his case was favorably closed.

9.  His NCOER covering the period 1 April 2010 through 30 November 2010 shows he received an overall rating of "among the best" from his rater, and his senior rater rated him as a "1/1" for his overall performance/overall potential.

10.  The applicant was awarded the MSM for service during the period              15 December 2004 to 3 January 2011.

11.  Orders dated 29 November 2010, reassigned him to USAREC, San Juan, Puerto Rico, with a report date of 10 February 2011.

12.  On 4 February 2011, the USAREC Commanding General provided a memorandum to the applicant's brigade commander, in which he stated: "I have reviewed the Report of Investigation dated 4 March 2010, and the evidence does substantiate that [the applicant] knowingly allowed grossly negligent acts in violation of regulation and policy that resulted in numerous fraudulent enlistments a violation of USAREC Regulation 601-45, paragraph 2-2a(3) and Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  This investigation is returned to you for further action as you deem appropriate."

13.  His NCOER covering the period 1 December 2010 through 30 June 2011, shows he was rated "Among the Best" by his rater.  The senior rater rated him as a "1 /1" for "Overall Performance/Overall Potential."

14.  On 15 July 2011, the USAREC Commanding General, MG M, provided a memorandum notifying the applicant of an adverse administration action against him.  He was informed of his relief from recruiting duty as unsuitable per the governing regulation.  He was also notified he would be processed for separation.

15.  On 15 July 2011, the USAREC Commanding General, MG M, provided a second memorandum informing the applicant that he was relieving him of his duties as a recruiter at the San Antonio Recruiting Battalion.  He further stated that based upon his review of the Report of Investigation dated 4 March 2010, he determined the evidenced demonstrated the he knowingly allowed grossly negligent acts in violation of regulation and policy.  The memorandum directed that the through date on the relief-for-cause NCOER reflect the date of his relief (15 July 2011).

16.  The applicant was issued a relief-for-cause NCOER covering the period       1 July through 6 October 2011 that shows the following entries:

	a.  In Part IVa (Army Values), the rater placed an "X" in the "No" block for "Integrity:  Does what is right – legally and morally" and entered the following comments:

* failed to live up to the Army values
* actions brought discredit upon the U.S. Army
* failed to adhere to Army regulations

	b.  In Part IVf (Responsibility and Accountability), the rater placed an "X" in the "Needs Improvement (Much)" block and entered the following comments:

* failed to live up to the Army values
* the rated NCO has been notified of the reason for the relief 

	c.  In Part Va (Rater – Overall Potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility), the rater placed an "X" in the "Marginal" block. The rater also entered three positions in which the applicant could best serve the Army at his current or next higher grade. 

	d.  In Part Vc (Senior Rater – Overall Performance), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fair/4" block.
	
	e.  In Part Vd (Senior Rater – Overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility), the senior rater placed an "X" in the "Fair/4" block.

	j.  In Part Ve (Senior Rater Bullet Comments) the senior rater entered the following bullet comments:

* verbal and not written counseling was accomplished
* performed duties commensurate with current rank
* do not recommend for promotion at this time
* do not consider for further NCO education system at this time
* rated Soldier refuses to sign

17.  The NCOER shows the rater signed the form on 15 December 2011, the senior rater on 10 January 2012, and the reviewer on 1 March 2012.  The applicant did not sign the NCOER. 

18.  Filed with the relief-for-cause NCOER are two enclosures as follows:

	a.  A form titled "Relief for Cause NCOER Directed by an Official Other Than the Rater or Senior Rater" signed by Mr. B, Human Resources Specialist, on 
15 December 2011, stating "It has been determined that the evidence demonstrates that you knowingly allowed grossly negligent acts in violation of regulation and policy that resulted in numerous fraudulent enlistments a violation of USAREC Regulation 601-45, paragraph 2-2a(3) and Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice."

	b.  A memorandum, dated 15 July 2011, stating the applicant was relieved of duties based on an investigation, dated 4 March 2010.  The memorandum directs that the through date on the report reflect the date of his relief (15 July 2011).  The memorandum was not signed; however, it is identical to a letter of relief from MG M, USAREC Commander.

19.  In a memorandum dated 20 December 2011, the applicant was informed by HRC Enlisted Promotions Branch that he had been selected for promotion to MSG by the FY 2012 MSG Promotion Selection Board.

20.  In a memorandum dated 8 June 2012, HRC Enlisted Promotions Branch informed the applicant's command that based on a relief-for-cause NCOER added to his OMPF after the FY 2012 MSG Promotion Selection Board, his record would be referred to a Standby Advisory Board to determine whether he should be retained or removed from the promotion list.

21.  He provided an email covering the period 12 February - 18 July 2011.  In the email, Command Sergeant Major (CSM) T informed CSM S that the case against the applicant was closed two weeks prior.  CSM T stated that of the four NCOs with substantiated allegations, none were relieved by the brigade.  He questioned why the applicant was being relieved.  In a previous exchange between LTC S and the applicant's brigade commander, COL H, LTC S states that the "commanding general (CG) substantiated the recruiting improprieties and returned to brigade" in regards to the applicant.

22.  He provided several emails for the period 10 January - 29 February 2012, between members of his former chain of command.  The email traffic discusses the contested NCOER.  On 29 February 2012, CPT D informed Mr. B that the applicant was at Fort Stewart, GA and he was asking for his last NCOER.  He stated the applicant needed it to in-process his new unit.

23.  He provided a statement of support from CSM T (retired), his former CSM, dated 3 October 2012.  CSM T states the following:

	a.  The applicant finds himself appealing the NCOER with plenty of justifications.  His unit at the time was under investigation for several recruiting allegations regarding helping applicants obtain study materials and ASVAB·study guides.  After almost a little over a year, the outcome was mostly unfounded for most of the Soldiers.  Only one station commander and one Soldier were found guilty of ASVAB cheating as he recalls. 

	b.  There were no findings of recruiter impropriety during the investigation for the applicant or his Soldiers.  The rest of the Soldiers were cleared by the USAREC CG at the time, MG C.  

	c.  The final case was reviewed by the new USAREC CG, MG M.  He stated to the brigade and battalion leadership during a conference call that he would never question the decision made by MG C.  The brigade commander recommended a local letter of reprimand as punishment.  This was supposed to be the only punishment for the applicant but because he had been reassigned, the punishment was sent to his gaining command.  His gaining command failed to give any punishment and they were to close the case with USAREC.

	d.  After his leadership failed to act, MG M decided to take matters at his level.  He went back on his word and changed MG C last call and ordered a relief for the applicant in lieu of local of reprimand.  

	e.  The applicant left his previous unit with the best NCOER a top NCO could earn.  He was awarded the MSM by the CG for all his great achievements while assigned to the San Antonio Recruiting Battalion.  Further, his total belief in the Army as an organization has been a key to so many quality applicants finding interest and a home in the Army.  The applicant's situation is a result of bad leadership decisions with a lot of history and clearly the abusive leadership style by the command, which took the easy road.  Shame.  The applicant deserves justice and equal treatment.  

24.  He provided a statement of support from COL S, his former battalion commander, dated 2 June 2012.  COL S attest to the applicant's many positive duty accomplishments and stated the applicant demonstrated the potential to serve in positions of greater responsibilities and showed a strong work ethic.

25.  He provided a statement of support from Major (MAJ) G, his company commander at the time of the investigation, dated 3 December 2012.  MAJ G states the following:

	a.  The applicant was cleared of all wrongdoing during the investigation, his FLAG was lifted, and he was selected for promotion to MSG.  He received his award from the brigade leadership and he was recognized in front of the entire brigade as the best station commander for FY 2010.  His reassignment to the Miami Recruiting Battalion was approved and he left without incident.  

	b.  After his reassignment, the new USAREC CG decided to substantiate the findings and directed a relief for cause NCOER well after the fact.  This clearly violates his rights to due process and former jeopardy.  Because of the NCOER, he was transition out of USAREC, flagged, and possibly removed from the promotion list for an incident that occurred over 2 years prior and that was already adjudicated by the previous USAREC commander.

	c. As the commander of the Rio Grande Recruiting Company during the investigation, she can attest that he was cleared of all allegations and he always conducted himself in a manner beyond reproach.  He adhered to regulation in all his actions and he instilled pride in his station for being number one.  These are not the actions of a person with no integrity.  He does was right, legally and morally, both on and off duty.  Therefore, she recommends his relief for cause NCOER be removed from his records.  

26.  On 29 August 2013, the ESRB denied his request for removal of the relief-for-cause NCOER from his OMPF.

27.  A review of the applicant's OMPF confirmed the relief-for-cause NCOER is filed in the performance folder of his OMPF.  

28.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-55 (Relief for Cause evaluation report), states a relief for cause NCOER is required when an NCO is relieved for cause.  An NCO can be relieved for cause regardless of the rating period involved.  Relief for cause is defined as the removal of an NCO from a specific duty or assignment based on a decision by a member of the NCO’s chain of command or supervisory chain.  A "Relief for Cause" occurs when the NCO’s personal or professional characteristics, conduct, behavior, or performance of duty warrants removal in the best interest of the U.S. Army.

28.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-55c states that if a "Relief for Cause" evaluation report is contemplated on the basis of an informal Army Regulation 15–6 investigation, the referral procedures contained In that regulation will be followed before the act of initiating or directing the relief.  This does not preclude a temporary suspension from assigned duties pending application of the procedural safeguards contained in Army Regulation 15–6.  A "Relief for Cause" report will be the final action after all investigations have been completed and a determination made.

29.  Army Regulation 15-6 paragraph 1–9 (Use of results of investigations in adverse administrative actions) states this regulation does not require that an investigation be conducted before adverse administrative action, such as relief for cause, can be taken against an individual.  However, if an investigation is conducted using the procedures of this regulation, the information obtained, including findings and recommendations, may be used in any administrative action against an individual, whether or not that individual was designated a respondent, and whether formal or informal procedures were used.  When adverse administrative action is contemplated against an individual, including an individual designated as a respondent, based upon information obtained as a result of an investigation or board conducted pursuant to this regulation, the appropriate military authority must observe the following minimum safeguards before taking final action against the individual:

	a.  Notify the person in writing of the proposed adverse action and provide a copy, if not previously provided, of that part of the findings and recommendations of the investigation or board and the supporting evidence on which the proposed adverse action is based.

	b.  Give the person a reasonable opportunity to reply in writing and to submit relevant rebuttal material.

	c.  Review and evaluate the person's response.

30.  Army Regulation 623-3, paragraph 3-39 (Modification to Previously Submitted Reports) states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, have been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of the rating officials at the time of preparation.  To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant 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 appellant.

31.  Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policy and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files, and ensure that the best interest of both the Army and the Soldier are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files.  It states that 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that a relief-for-cause NCOER covering the period 
1 July through 6 October 2011 should be removed from his OMPF.  He contends he was denied due process.

2.  The evidence shows that as a result of an Army Regulation 15-6 investigation, it was determined that he knowingly allowed grossly negligent acts in violation of regulation and policy that resulted in numerous fraudulent enlistments a violation of USAREC regulations.  

3.  After reviewing the applicant's rebuttal to the allegations, his battalion and brigade commanders concluded the preponderance of evidence did not prove the applicant committed the recruiting improprieties.  However, after reviewing the investigation, MG C concluded the applicant knowingly allowed grossly negligent acts in violation of regulation and policy that resulted in numerous fraudulent enlistments a violation of USAREC regulations.  The investigation was returned to the applicant's brigade for appropriate action.

3.  MG M conducted a second review of the investigation and he also concluded the applicant violated regulations and policy.  As a result, MG M directed the issuance of a relief-for-cause NCOER.  The report was filed in the performance section of his OMPF.

4.  The applicant contends that his rebuttal was not reviewed by the general officers prior to making their determination; however, absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed his rebuttal was considered by the general officers as part of the investigation review process.  The lack of documentary evidence indicating otherwise does not render the evaluation report invalid.

5.  He also contends that his request for removal of the NCOER is denied, the "THRU" date of the report should read 15 July 2011, the date when the relief was directed; however, this is a minor administrative error and changing the "THRU" on the report would have no effect on the contents of the NCOER.  

6.  The fact remains that two general officers concluded there was enough evidence to substantiate wrongdoing on the part of the applicant and he has failed to show that the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation was not completed correctly.  Therefore, he has failed to show the relief-for-cause NCOER was issued in error or that it is unjust.

7.  In viewing of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case 

are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




      _______ _  X_______   ___
       	   CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017071





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140017071



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1