IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019629 


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, in effect:

* consideration by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for award of a disability rating of 40 percent (%) or more for the following medical conditions:

* head trauma (traumatic brain injury (TBI))
* left and right bilateral wrist pain due to symptomatic mid-carpal instability with a minimal rating of 10%
* lower back pain with a minimal rating of 20%

* a medical disability retirement with a rating of at least 40%
* a personal appearance before the Board

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  The PEB did not properly consider his head trauma for a rating.  The rating the PEB assigned was too low for his left and right chronic bilateral wrist pain due to symptomatic mid-carpal instability.  The PEB wrongfully denied him a rating for his mechanical lower back condition.  He injured his back conducting unit required physical fitness training over a year before his medical separation.  He had reported his pains and problems with his back to the medics in his unit on multiple occasions.  He even complained during his final physical evaluation about the amount of pain he had.  The hospital took x-rays, had him bend over to touch his toes, and advised him to take 800 milligrams of Motrin and rest.  The extent of his injuries required magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for proper diagnosis.  He did not receive proper medical attention for his TBI and back pain while he was on active duty.  He was wrongfully separated from the service while he was still injured.  
   
   b.  He is currently dealing with chronic pain that has severely limited his ability to move or to even function on a daily basis.  His back pain never went away since the original injury occurred in August 2000.  In 2005 (post service), he received an MRI and was diagnosed with degenerative disk disease, canal stenosis, nerve root compression, and mild neural foraminal narrowing.  On 27 September 2014, he had an MRI by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that showed he has multi-level degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, disk protrusion that impinges on the nerve root, and neural foraminal stenosis from mild to severe.

   c.  The Army's decision to separate him pursuant to Army Regulation 635-40 (Personnel Separations, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 4, violated mandatory Army regulations governing his medical evaluation.  He suffered from a disability that interfered with the performance of his military duties.  During his service, he suffered from a lower back disability, manifested by symptoms including limited motion with pain and radiating pain that significantly interfered with his ability to perform his military responsibilities.  Accordingly, instead of being honorably/medically separated, he should have been found unfit for service and medically retired from the Army pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), section 1021.  

   d.  The PEB disability determination did not fairly and accurately reflect the extent of his physical condition.  Under the General Rating Formula for Disease and Injuries of the Spine, an individual should receive a disability rating of 20% for "forward flexion of the spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees," in accordance with Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5242.  However, this is not the sole criterion for a disability rating of 20 percent.  Notably, an individual's functional loss due to pain must also be considered when determining the appropriate disability rating.  As the court of appeals for veterans claims (the court) held in Deluca V. Brown, all complaints of functional loss resulting from pain, including swelling, weakness, excess fatigability, diminished endurance, and incoordination, must be considered in conjunction with the diagnostic codes which provide a rating on the basis of loss of range of motion.  

   e.  The applicant states there are court opinions that, in effect, support his application.  The 8th Veterans Appeals (Vet App), sections 202 and 207 (1995) (rejecting the Board of Veterans Appeals reliance on examination that "merely recorded the veteran's range of motion" without addressing functional loss due to pain upon motion).  Also, in the case of Cullin v. Shinseki, 24 Vet App, sections 74 and 85 (2010) the court explained that Deluca "required that the disabling effect of painful motion by considered when rating joint disabilities.".  As the court more recently described in the case of Mitchell v. Shinseki, pain in a particular joint may result in functional loss where "it limits the ability to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, or endurance," (25th Vet App, sections 32 37 (2011) (quoting Title 38, CFR, section 4.40).  These relevant legal authorities were incorrectly applied to his case by the PEB.

   f.  In this case, the PEB failed to consider the functional loss caused by the pain he suffered due to his medically unfitting condition.  When functional loss is taken into account, it is clear under the law that the PEB should have assigned a 20% rating for his lower spine disability.  A report from his last Army physician showed he had forward flexion range, but there was no movement without pain.  He was never asked to stop when it hurt, he was instructed to push through and see how far he could bend.  His range of motion without pain was never calculated.  He has very minimal forward flexion and with great pain.  He also has records wherein he stated he had localized tenderness, muscle spasm, and extreme amounts of chronic pain.  He had experienced functional loss because he was unable to perform "normal working movements" with "normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, or endurance" due to painful motion in his lower back.  

   g.  Thus, it is clear under both the applicable regulations and case law that his functional loss should have been considered by the PEB's evaluation (Title 38, CFR, sections 4.40, 4.59 and Deluca, 8th Vet App, section 205-06).  Taking into proper consideration the aforementioned functional loss due to the pain, the forward flexion of his spine condition is functionally limited.  Therefore, pursuant to 38 CFR, section 4.124a, DC 5242, and the General Rating Formula for Disease and Injuries of the Spine, the PEB should have assigned his condition a disability rating for 20%.

   h.  He states he was rapidly discharged through an out-dated and archaic PEB medical separation process.  He was not properly rated through an integrated disability evaluation system.  He has been actively fighting for his VA disability rating since his discharge.  He reached out for help from the VA and the Special Operations Command Wounded Warrior Advocate after receiving a letter from the VA stating his name was on a list with other qualified veterans for the Physical Disability Review Board (PDRB) or Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) review of his medical separation.  They recently discussed with him the option of the PDRB or BCMR.  He had no prior knowledge of what a BCMR was.  He feels he was unjustly rated and discharged; therefore, he is requesting a waiver of the 3-year statute of limitations for timely filing.

   i.  The VA has rated him service-connected for his right leg, TBI, and left and right wrist mid-carpel instability.  He still has a pending claim for his lower back.  His VA physician has recently discussed referring him to a surgeon for a possible surgery on his back (L3, L4, and L5 disks), arthritis, and severe nerve pain that has been indicated in multiple MRIs.  He has had no injuries to his back since separating from the military.  He is unable to sit, stand for more than a few minutes, and he can't tie his own shoes.  He has had to purchase slip-on shoes.  He doesn't even have the ability to play with his children due to his pain and discomfort.  His lower back pain has hindered his life so much; he can't put it into words for someone to truly understand.  
   
   j.  The initial injuries occurred during his active duty service.  He was constantly told the same thing over and over by Army medical personnel, even though he was in pain, he still had great range of motion so no other tests were required.  His medical records and letters from other Soldiers from his former chain of command attest to these statements.

3.  The applicant provides copies of the following:

* DA Form 705 (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) Scorecard)
* eight Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care)
* three Standard Form 509 (Progress Notes) treatment by VA
* three orthopedic consultation sheets
* Commander's Letter of Evaluation memorandum
* DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile)
* DD Form 2697 (Report of Medical Assessment)
* DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) 
* DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination)
* Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary (NARSUM)
* DA Form 3347 (MEB Proceedings)
* DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings)
* DA Form 5893-R (PEB Liaison Officer Counseling Checklist Statement)
* Orders Number 317-0019
* civilian medical records
* four support letters
* VA Rating Decision


CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

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

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 February 1998 with prior U.S. Marine Corps enlisted service.  He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 68B (aircraft powerplant repairer).  

3.  He provided copies of the following:

   a.  A DA Form 705 which shows he passed the APFT on 7 January and 15 September 1999 and 12 June 2000.  On 17 January 2001, the test was not administered due to a profile.

   b.  Seven SFs 600 which show he received medical treatment on/for:

* 22 October 1999 – a laceration to his forehead
* 3 January 2000 – left wrist pain lasting for 2 weeks; he was x-rayed, diagnosed with a wrist sprain, and was placed on a profile for 30 days
* 8 August 2000 – injured his lower back while weight training, it constantly hurts especially when he tilts his head back, applicant denied history of back problems; diagnosis back strain with no AFPT profile for 2 weeks
* 27 November 2000 – left wrist pain lasting for 2 weeks; he was diagnosed with Tendonitis and prescribed medication (Motrin)
* 3 January 2001 – left wrist pain, sharp when he flexes; diagnosed as soft tissue injury, wrist sprain and placed on profile for 30 day with no push-ups, continue with Motrin 
* 5 March 2001 – left wrist pain lasting for 4 1/2 months; he was diagnosed with a sprain/tear, prescribed medication (Motrin), and was placed on a profile for 2 weeks and an MRI was ordered
* 28 March 2001 – left wrist pain; he was x-rayed and referred to Orthopedics
   c.  An Occupational Therapy Consult report, dated 29 March 2001, which shows he was referred to Occupational Therapy for a left wrist sprain/strain.
   
   d.  Three Orthopedics Consultation Sheets, dated 28 March, 14 May, and 19 June 2001, which shows he was diagnosed with chronic dorsal wrist pain and fitted for a wrist cast.
   
   e.  An Orthopedic Consultation Sheet, dated 31 July 2001, wherein the doctor discussed a permanent profile, arthroscopy surgery, MOS reclassification and a potential MEB.  He applicant's MRI was normal. 

   f.  An SF 600 which show he received medical treatment on 8 August 2001 for right wrist pain lasting for 2 weeks and he was referred to Orthopedics.

   g.  A Commander's Letter of Evaluation memorandum, dated 10 August 2001, wherein the applicant's commander recommended the applicant be processed and separated through the U.S. Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) immediately.  He stated the applicant's disability had impacted his performance of his duties in his primary MOS of 68B since early October 2000 in the following manner:

* inability to perform his basic physical fitness training with his assigned section or the company
* inability to be released by the Flight Surgeon as fit for duty to perform maintenance functions requiring lifting and basic mechanic actions
* his duty performance had been poor due to his physical impairments and profiles and he could no longer function as an engine mechanic
* his injury prevented him from fulfilling the requirements of a 68B which adversely impacted upon the section's mission accomplishments
* his wrists pain and profile had prevented the command from administering a more recent APFT

   h.  A DA Form 3349, dated 13 August 2001, which shows he was assigned a permanent profile of 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1 for left wrist mid-carpal instability.  He was restricted from push-ups, weapon carrying or firing, and lifting over 20 pounds.

   i.  DD Forms 2697, 2807-1, and 2808 which show he underwent a medical examination on 16 August 2001 for the purpose of a medical board.  He stated on the forms he had left and right wrist pain, lower back pain, and he had sustained a broken leg and a head injury.

   j.  An SF 600 which show he received medical treatment on 15 September 2001 for lower back pain lasting for 1 year which was chronic, but was currently getting worse.  He was diagnosed with mechanical lower back pain, referred to physical therapy, and prescribed Motrin for pain.

   k.  An NARSUM, dated 26 September 2001, which stated the applicant's chief compliant was left greater than right wrist pain.  He had been prescribed Motrin as needed for pain.  He was unable to perform his duties as a 68B.  He was found to be medically unacceptable in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3-14, paragraph k, which stated the causes for a referral to an MEB.  He was referred to an MEB.

   l.  A DA Form 3947 which shows an MEB convened on 28 September 2001 and considered the applicant's medical condition of bilateral mid-carpal symptomatic instability with persistent pain.  The applicant's condition was found to be medically unacceptable and he was referred to a PEB.  The applicant concurred and stated he did not desire to continue on active duty.

   m.  An SF 600 which shows he received medical treatment on 15 October 2001 for lower back pain lasting for 1 1/2 years which was reoccurring pain as a result of an injury while working out at a gym as the machine broke and hit his back (emphasis added).  He was diagnosed with mechanical lower back pain and prescribed Motrin for pain.

   n.  A DA Form 199 which shows an informal PEB convened on 10 October 2001 and found the applicant was diagnosed with chronic bilateral wrist pain due to symptomatic mid-carpal instability under VA codes 5009 and 5003.  He was not diagnosed with any other medical conditions and no other medical conditions were referred to the PEB.  The PEB recommended he be separated with a combined rating of 10%, with entitlement to severance pay.  On 16 October 2001, he concurred with the board's findings and recommendations and waived his right to a formal hearing and the PEB was approved.

   o.  A DA Form 5893-R, dated 16 October 2001, shows he acknowledged receiving counseling on his disability evaluation.  

4.  He was honorably discharged in pay grade E-5 on 20 November 2001, by reason of disability with entitlement to severance pay.  He was credited with completing 3 years, 8 months, and 27 days of active duty.  He was also credited with a total of 4 years, 10 months, and 18 day of prior active and inactive service.

5.  He also provides copies of the following:

   a.  Three SFs 509 which show he received medical treatment by the VA on/for:
* 14 June 2004 – episodes of uncontrollable rage and he deferred to intake
* 28 September 2004 – anxiousness and irritability; he described he had been in a fight at a bar and he was attacked by 4 individuals; he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) episodes of uncontrollable rage; he was deferred to intake
* 14 October 2004 – diagnosed with PTSD and mood disorder, prescribed medication; he showed no interest in becoming involved in any long-term therapy and stated he would call if necessary
* 5 February 2005 – applicant did not return telephone calls from VA official

   b.  Documentation dated between 2005 and 2011 which shows he received medical treatment for his lower back, elbow, and shoulder pain; underwent several MRIs; and received physical therapy.

   c.  Four letters of support from 3 members of his former unit and his chiropractor.  The former members attested that around 2000 the applicant sustained a head trauma in the aircraft that required stitches while on deployment during training.  The applicant also complained of back pain and his wrists were so bad he couldn't perform physical fitness training with them.  The applicant was placed in a wrist cast and was seen by a specialist.  He was later medically separated for both of his wrists.  The applicant's chiropractor stated the applicant had been his patient since 10 October 2013 for unrelenting sciatic neuralgia as well as biceps, shoulder, and neck pain.  The applicant's current career (civilian) had caused constant exacerbations to his preexisting medical condition.

   d.  A VA Rating Decision dated 23 March 2015, which shows his previously awarded zero percent disabling rating for depression and TBI (claimed as memory loss, anxiety, and sleep disorder) was increased to 50% effective 30 September 2014.

6.  In a letter, dated 3 December 2014, in response to his application for correction of his military records, the ARBA advised the applicant that on the issue of his disability separation with severance pay for unfitness with a combined rating of 20% or less he was not found eligible for disability retirement. While the ABCMR could consider his issue he had the option of applying to the PDRB.  The decision of either board was final.  If denied by one Board, he could not apply to the other Board on the same issue.  The letter also advised him to indicate his decision by selecting and signing the next page of the letter and returning it to ARBA.  He did not reply.
7.  Army Regulation 635-40, in effect at the time, established the PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  Under the laws governing the PDES, Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet several lines of duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement or severance pay benefits.  One of the criteria is that the disability must have incurred or been aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or was the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  Separation by reason of disability requires processing through the PDES.

   a.  The PDES assessment process involves two distinct stages:  the MEB and the PEB.  The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member’s injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service.  A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty.  A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition.  Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability are either separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service.  Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retirement payments and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. 

   b.  Paragraph 3-1 of the regulation states the mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justifies a finding of unfitness.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty.  A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating.

   c.  Paragraph 3-2b (processing for separation or retirement from active duty) states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  When a Soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that the Soldier is fit.  The presumption of fitness may be overcome if the evidence establishes that:

		(1)  The Soldier was, in fact, physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating for a period of time because of disability.  There must be a causative relationship between the less than adequate duty performance and the unfitting medical condition or conditions.

		(2)  An acute, grave illness or injury or other significant deterioration of the Soldier’s physical condition occurred immediately prior to, or coincident with processing for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability and which rendered the Soldier unfit for further duty.

   d.  Appendix B, states the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) is primarily used as a guide for evaluating disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service.  Because of differences between Army and VA applications of rating policies, differences in ratings may result.  Unlike the VA, the Army must first determine whether or not a Soldier is fit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  Once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD.  These percentages are applied based on the severity of the condition at the time of separation.  

   e.  For a Soldier to be permanently retired for physical disability a Soldier's disabling condition must have been incurred or aggravated while entitled to basic pay and the condition must be rated as 30% disabling or more.

8.  Title 38, USC, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish an error or injustice in the Army rating.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service.  The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career.  The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service.  The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.  Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.

9.  Title 10, USC, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30%. 

10.  Title 10, USC, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30%.

11.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR), paragraph 2-11, states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing (personal appearance) whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  With regard to a consideration by a PEB for award of a disability rating of 40% or more for head trauma (TBI), left and right bilateral wrist pain due to symptomatic mid-carpal instability, and lower back pain:

   a.  The evidence of records clearly shows the applicant's diagnosed medical condition of chronic bilateral wrists pain impacted his performance of his military duties in his MOS since early October 2000.  In his case, there were no other medical conditions actively limiting his ability to perform his military duties at the time of his PDES separation processing.

   b.  He provided medical documentation showing he received medical treatment while in the service for a head injury, left and right wrist pain, and back pain.  His NARSUM shows his chief complaint was left greater than right wrist pain.  He was processed through the PDES for that medical condition only.  An informal PEB found him unfit with a combined rating of 10% and recommended his separation with severance pay.  He concurred with the PEB's findings, recommendations, and ratings regarding chronic bilateral wrists pain and waived his right to a formal hearing.

   c.  Whenever there is a disability, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating.  A disability rating assigned by the Army is based on the level of disability at the time of the Soldier's separation and can only be accomplished through the PDES. 
   d.  Prior to his discharge, he received intermittent treatment for lower back pain and was prescribed Motrin.  However, this condition was not referred to the MEB; thus it was not considered by the PEB per Army regulation.   
   
   e.  Subsequent to his discharge, he received treatment for anxiety and mood disorders by the VA and was diagnosed with depression and TBI.  In 2015, the VA increased his disability rating from 0 to 50% for TBI (claimed as memory loss, anxiety, and sleep disorder).  He contends he has a pending claim with the VA for lower back pain.

   f.  A PEB does not compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions that could be considered service-connected.  It is a role that the VA assumes. The PEB determines of fitness for duty and when warranted disability based on the information at hand at the time of separation.  If the VA awarded him an increased service-connected disability rating for his medical conditions, it is not supported by an error in his military PDES process.  
   
   g.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice in the Army rating.  Contrary to his contentions, the Army and the VA do not operate under the same policies and regulations.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulation, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  

   h.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved (i. e., the more stringent standard by which a Soldier is determined not to be medically fit for duty versus the standard by which a civilian would be determined to be socially or industrially impaired), an individual’s medical condition may be rated by the Army at one level and by the VA at another level. 

   i.  A thorough review of the medical evidence provided by the applicant shows there is insufficient evidence to support an assessment of the additional medical conditions listed by him to determine his fitness for duty in 2001.  The evidence shows he received consistent treatment for his bi-lateral wrist pain and ultimately a doctor advised him that this condition warranted a change in his MOS and consideration by an MEB.  There is insufficient evidence in his available medical records to show that TBI and lower back pain warranted consideration by an MEB.   
   
   
2.  With regard to a medical retirement, based on his rating of less than 30% he was discharged accordingly.  Without evidence to the contrary, his separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations at the time with due process.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to warrant correcting his record to show retirement due to a medical disability.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ____x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




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

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019629



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019629



13


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1