PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           2 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999020976

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  
				
	Mr. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in essence, removal of a Letter (sic Memorandum) of Reprimand (MOR), dated 10 March 1998, issued by a lieutenant colonel (LTC);  removal of a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the rating period October through December 1997; to conduct an investigation into the conduct of his command in actions taken against him; that his brigade and battalion commanders and a command sergeant major and a sergeant major be reprimanded, the officers for their conduct and the two NCO’s for dereliction of their duties by knowingly participating in an injustice and allowing it to continue.  

3.  The applicant states, in his initial application, with a supporting letter, that the MOR was issued by his battalion commander without authority or justification or jurisdiction to do so.  In essence, he stated that the battalion commander issued the MOR in his capacity of an acting brigade commander, although the brigade commander later repudiated this by stating that the MOR was issued by the officer in his capacity as the battalion commander.  He then goes on to state that the LTC slandered him; that he rushed to judgement and orchestrated the issuance of an unfair NCOER and MOR before the formal investigation was completed, which vindicated him.  The applicant then states that prejudice, bigotry and command influence “runs rampant throughout my case.”  He contends that the battalion commander used his grade and position to “will” his personal prejudices against the applicant in order to destroy the applicant personally and professionally despite the existence of hard evidence contrary to the allegations against the applicant; that the brigade commander, a colonel (COL), neglected his professional duty by recommending that the MOR be placed in his official military personnel file (OMPF) against all evidence and stating that the battalion commander had not acted as his (the brigade commander’s) representative in preparing the MOR.  He then goes on to state that he believes that the words of two African Americans were blatantly disregarded because (he asks the rhetorical question):  “How many African Americans’ word would it take to equal one white female?  It is clear that two are not enough.”  He submits a number of documents to include a “redacted’ copy of the Military Police Report (MPR), a copy of the MOR, a memorandum relieving him from his duties, a rebuttal to the MOR, and a number of letters in support of his case.  He also submits a copy of the regimental/battalion rating scheme and a copy of the NCOER in question.

4.  On 15 March 1999, the applicant submitted another application form which provided a number of new documents including correspondence with his United States Senators.  In this application, he states that the listed rater, senior rater and reviewer were not in his rating chain and that the MOR states that he committed adultery, which he did not, as supported by the MPR.  He also contends that he should not have been removed from a standing promotion list.  He submits other evidence and letters to support his claim that he was not rated by the proper officials; letters from two captains for whom he worked at the time;  copies of the MOR;  correspondence between Department of the Army officials and one of his United States Senators;  a copy of the notification of his removal from a standing promotion list and his rebuttal.  He contends that the letter to his United States Senator shows that “….someone was and is lying about my case and it was and is not myself.”  He also submits duplicates of some of the documentation submitted with his original application.

5.  Finally, on 2 December 1999, he submits a third packet of material which contains a detailed rebuttal of the case by a Judge Advocate General Corps (JAGC) officer acting as an attorney-advisor to the applicant.  He essentially reiterates the arguments of the applicant, particularly depending on the statement of the applicant that he denied the allegation.  The applicant’s attorney-advisor then notes that the applicant has received harm already, to include removal from the promotion list to pay grade E-8, and that he might be a candidate for selection under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP) for early release from active duty.  No new documentation is submitted that has not already been highlighted. 

6.  The applicant’s military records show that he had prior service in the Army Reserve and on active duty for 1 year, 11 months and 23 days from May 
1979 through July 1981.  He attained the rank of specialist and was trained as a Lance Missile Crewmember.  

7.  On 1 September 1981, after two months in the Delayed Entry Program, he enlisted in the Regular Army and his service thereafter has been continuous.  He served as a Lance Missile Crewmember, an administrative noncommissioned officer (NCO), a platoon sergeant, a field recruiter, a small group leader in a Basic NCO Course (cadre), had another assignment to a newer missile system, and was promoted to the rank of sergeant first class, pay grade E-7 on 
1 September 1993. He then was assigned to Fort Rucker, Alabama, in October 1995, where he served as a Senior Instructor/Writer in Military Occupational Specialty 93P (Aviation Operations Specialist/Sergeant).  Every indication is that the applicant had served well and was considered to be having a fully successful career.  

8.  At the time of the incident in question in the fall of 1997, he was serving as a senior instructor/writer for the Aviation Operations Specialist (AOS) course.  As such, he was assigned to the Headquarters Company of the 1-13th Aviation Regiment (whose commander was considered a battalion commander, with the rank of LTC), 1st Aviation Brigade, which was commanded by a COL.  

9.  On 1 September 1997, a 1/13th Aviation Regimental  rating scheme was published, showing that the applicant was rated by a master sergeant with the duty position of chief instructor.  His senior rater was a sergeant major (SGM), with the duty title of committee chief and his reviewer was the battalion commander.  On 1 October 1997, a second rating scheme was published showing a new rater for the applicant, a promotable sergeant first class (SFC (P), with the same senior instructor job title.  His senior rater and reviewer remained the same.  
  
10.  On 3 October 1997, a ”change in rater” NCOER was prepared by the MSG as the result of that NCO’s permanent change in station.  The report was highly complimentary and he was shown to have superior potential.  The rating period was for 6 months from April through September 1997.

11.  On 24 November 1997, the applicant was supposedly found by a female sergeant, with the same rank, to be in a locked classroom at approximately 
1645 hours with a female individual, who later turned out to be a trainee.  The female sergeant claimed that she observed the applicant on top of the trainee, with his pants pulled down, and they were apparently involved in an act of sexual intercourse.  The lights in the room were supposedly off, although the applicant claimed that the lights were undergoing repairs in the building and there was emergency lighting in use.  

12.  The female instructor immediately went to the SGM’s office (he was the training committee chairperson) and reported the incident.  The SGM proceeded to the area and found the applicant in the hallway.  He questioned the applicant as to whether he had been in a classroom with a female individual.  The applicant stated yes, and the SGM had the applicant find and bring this individual to his office.  She was a trainee, with the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4, and was African-American as was the applicant.  The female sergeant who claims that she found the applicant and the trainee together was Caucasian.  

13.  The battalion commander was then notified and the Military Police were called.  Supposedly, the applicant was arrested, handcuffed and led away by the Military Police officials.  The initial investigation was made for possible adultery and fraternization. The Military Police Investigator (MPI) questioned both the trainee and the applicant in the early evening of November 24th.  The trainee made a sworn statement in which she stated that she did not engage in sexual intercourse with the applicant.  The applicant did not waive his rights and requested to consult with a lawyer. Other statements were taken from the sergeant who claims she discovered the applicant, the trainee and the SGM, which essentially reaffirmed the stated facts surrounding the incident as outlined above.

14.  On 25 November 1997, the applicant claims that he was relieved of his duties with the 1st of the 13th Aviation Regiment, 1st Aviation Group and was transferred to duties in the 1st Battalion, 145th Aviation Regiment, within the same aviation group.  He performed duties as an S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations) sergeant in that unit and was assigned to duties with a special project involving an aviation training conference.  That he performed duties in his new assignment is supported by two statements from Army captains who were his immediate supervisor and the officer-in-charge of the project on which he worked.  These documents show that he began his duties on 25 November 1997 and served in them until mid-February 1998.  

15.  A statement from the applicant’s rater as of 1 October 1997 (the SFC (P)), which is undated, but addressed to the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, indicates that he was told by the SGM in December 1997 that he was not to render a report on the applicant since the applicant was under investigation.  The rater was departing at the end of December 1997 on a permanent change of station and had initially prepared reports on all four NCO’s whom he rated, to include the applicant.  

16.  On 9 January 1998, the applicant’s command completed an NCOER ( DA Form 2166-7) on the applicant.  It covered the rating period October through December 1997, and showed his unit as the 1st of the 13th Aviation Regiment.  It was a relief for cause NCOER.  (NOTE: The report period covered 3 months, but only 2 months were rated since a rating official was shown as not qualified for the whole period (Code Q)).  The rater was shown as the SGM (the committee chairperson), the senior rater was the battalion commander and the reviewer was the brigade commander.  The report was an adverse report, with several Personal Values and NCO Responsibilities in Part IVa of the form marked “no”.  Part IVb-f, (the rater’s ratings) had “needs much improvement” ratings for item b (Competence), item d (Leadership) and item f (Responsibility and Accountability). Ratings for Physical Fitness/Military Bearing and Training were shown as Successful.  Overall, the rater marked the applicant in Part V (Overall Performance and Potential) as marginal.  The Senior Rater marked his overall performance as successful (3rd block out of 5 blocks, 5 being the lowest rating) and his overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility was poor (block 5).  However, the report was not forwarded to the applicant until 5 February 1998.

17.  On 5 February 1998, a memorandum was sent to the applicant from his battalion commander, addressed to him as a member of Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Battalion, 13th Aviation Regiment.  The subject of the memorandum was:  Relief from Branch Chief Instructor Duties.  In the memorandum, his NCOER for the rating period October through December 1997 was forwarded to him in accordance with paragraph 2-10b, Army Regulation 623-205.  Additionally, he was notified that he was relieved from his “present Branch Chief Instructor” duties for failure to maintain requisite high standards of conduct and professionalism, and alleged violation of Article 91, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).”  The commander went on to state that it was his assessment that the applicant’s violation of AR 600-20, Chapter 4-14 and 4-15, by giving the appearance of improper association with a “reclassification training student” warranted a general officer letter of reprimand (GOLOR).  He stated that he intended to recommend to the Commanding General of US Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker that the applicant receive a letter of reprimand and that it be placed on his performance fiche in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  

18  The memorandum went on to state that his reassignment to another regiment in the brigade had been directed, that he should turn in all keys and other property, not enter any buildings of the battalion and not associate with the female student or the accuser.  He was given 10 days to acknowledge receipt of the memorandum and to submit any rebuttal statement.  He acknowledged receipt of the memorandum on 9 February 1998 and indicated that he would submit a rebuttal.

19.  On 28 February 1998, a Department of the Army (DA) Centralized Promotion List was published announcing the applicant’s selection for promotion to the rank of master sergeant (MSG), pay grade E-8.   

20.  On 10 March 1998, the applicant’s former battalion commander, acting in the capacity as the acting brigade commander of the 1st Aviation Brigade, Fort Rucker, issued an official MOR to the applicant.  In this MOR, he stated, that the applicant was officially reprimanded for exercising poor judgement by engaging in misconduct by entering into an improper relationship with a female student.  As an instructor and a married man, the commander stated that his conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The MOR then goes on to state:  “Specifically, on or about 24 November 1997, you were discovered in a locked AIT classroom, with the lights off, on top of a female trainee in an apparent act of sexual intercourse.” The issuing officer stated that the MOR was administrative in nature, but that he was considering recommending to the commanding general that the MOR be placed in his OMPF.  He was given 7 days to respond.

21.  On 23 March 1998, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the MOR.  In this rebuttal, the applicant submits a detailed response to each allegation, to include challenging the right of the battalion commander to issue the MOR as the acting brigade commander.  He proclaimed his innocence of all the charges and that he had been denied due process by a prejudiced chain of command.  Essentially, he claims that the room was well lighted by emergency spot lights, that he was simply discussing with the female student methods she could use to improved her physical training scores, that as the Equal Opportunity NCO for his unit he received a lot of calls from female soldiers, that he offered to give a statement several times to the SGM and his unit commander and that the trainee gave a statement to the unit commander that the room was lighted and that the applicant told the trainee that other instructors had keys for access to the room, therefore it was illogical for him to engage in sexual misconduct in the classroom.  He then goes on to again challenge the intent of his battalion commander, that the accusor had a poor appearance (unlike another black sergeant who was forced to retire), that the accuser wanted (and did get) the applicant’s job and a general discussion of his perceived Equal Opportunity violations by a prejudiced chain of command.  

22.  The MOR, with rebuttal, was submitted through his new unit and battalion commanders, who both recommended that the MOR be only filed in the local unit file.  These commanders both found that the applicant’s rebuttal brought up too many inconsistencies not answered by the investigation.  These endorsements are undated.

23.  On 29 May 1998, the brigade commander recommended to the installation commanding general that the MOR be placed in the applicant’s OMPF.  He submitted the recommendation of the subordinate commanders, the relief for cause NCOER, highlighted the sequence of events in the applicant’s relief (supposedly given the NCOER on 3 February and was relieved on 9 February 1998), and submitted the rebuttal of the applicant, dated 23 March 1998.  The installation staff judge advocate concurred, and on 15 June 1998 the installation commander, a major general, directed that the MOR be placed in the applicant’s OMPF maintained by the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC).  

24.  In the meantime, on 31 March 1999, the MPI completed their MPR of the investigation.  The MPR essentially found that the incident happened, but that the applicant was only to titled with fraternization, not the additional matter involving adultery.  The report contained statements taken from the individuals involved to include the applicant, the accusor, the trainee, the SGM and one other individual who was also a trainee (this trainee was supposed to be a female Caucasian).  This individual related to the MPI that the trainee who was with the applicant in the classroom told her that she and the applicant had been caught “buck naked getting their grove on.”  The MPI had also removed a section of the rug from the classroom where the applicant and the trainee were supposedly engaging in intercourse and had it tested for signs of semen or other body fluids, but the tests were negative.  

25.  On 8 April 1998, the applicant’s new battalion commander approved the award of the first oak leaf cluster to the Army Achievement Medal for the applicant in recognition of outstanding performance of duty in connection with the 1998 Aviation Leaders’ Training Conference at Fort Rucker.  The period of service for the award was shown as 25 November 1997 through 20 February 1998.  His unit was shown as the 1st of the 145th Aviation Regiment.  He had also received a certificate of achievement  from his brigade commander in March for assisting in a Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps drill program at Fort Rucker.  

26  Information contained in a letter from the Department of the Army to a United States Senator in March 1999, indicates that the applicant appealed his NCOER in June 1998.  The appeal was returned on 26 June, 12 August and 
14 September 1998 by the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) for additional information and supporting evidence of an incorrect, inaccurate or unjust NCOER.  There is no evidence that this appeal was ever returned by the applicant to complete the appeal process.  

27.  On 13 July 1999, a 5-month NCOER (DA Form 2166-7) was completed on the applicant in his new unit (1st of the 145th Regiment) for the rating period January through June 1998 (NOTE:  A 6 month period, but it appears that a 
1-month period was determined to be non-rated, again due to a lack of qualified rater (Code Q)).  His rater was the battalion S-3 (Operations Officer), his senior rater was the battalion executive officer and the reviewer was the battalion commander.  All remarks and ratings were highly complementary.  His overall performance was marked as successful (block 2) and his potential was shown as superior (block 1).  

28.  On 28 August 1998, the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board denied a request from the applicant for removal of the “GOMOR” (General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand) from his records.  That board noted that it did not have the authority to act on a request for removal of the NCOER from his records, and that he had made application to this Board.  That board noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence, except his assertions, of his innocence.  His command had considered these matters in his rebuttal to the MOR.  There was no factual evidence submitted that the commander’s actions were unauthorized, nor that the chain of command influenced the action taken.  The DASEB was not inclined to substitute its judgment for that of the commander and the general officer who directed the disposition of the MOR.  The applicant had presented insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity with regard to the filing of the MOR.

29.  With this decisional document, is a copy of a “faxed” note from the brigade commander at Fort Rucker to the acting president of the DASEB, dated 
3 September 1998, apparently in response to some request for information from the DASEB.  In this note, there were two additional pieces of information.  First, the commander stated that the applicant had been moved immediately from the AIT (Advanced Individual Training) battalion following the arrest.  Secondly, the brigade commander noted that the applicant had made some very pointed allegations regarding the command climate.  The brigade commander then stated:  “I then directed a command climate survey, as well as dispatching resident EOAs, EOLs (Note:  Equal Opportunity specialists) to conduct surveys within the AIT population as well as military and civilian cadre.”  He reported that none of the applicant’s allegations were substantiated.  

30.  On 31 August 1998, a flag (suspension of favorable personnel actions) was initiated by the EREC, to remove the applicant’s name from the February 1998 DA Army Centralized Promotion List for MSG, pay grade E-8.  On the same date, a memorandum was sent through his command to him informing him that due to receipt of the “GOMOR “ and the adverse NCOER, his records would be referred to a Standby Advisory Board (STAB) to determine if his name should be removed from the standing promotion list.  He was informed that he had been placed in a non-promotable status until the matter was resolved.  He was given until 
16 October 1998 to respond to the notification.

31.  On 20 November 1998, he submitted a long, detailed appeal of the removal from the MSG standing promotion list.  He essentially covered the same material as is contained in his current application to this Board.  While there is no evidence available as to the results of the DA review action, likewise, there is no evidence that he has ever been promoted to the rank of MSG.

32.  Army Regulation 600-37, at paragraph 3-4, provides the policy and procedures for issuance and filing of letters or memorandums of reprimand (LOR/MOR-GOLOR or GOMOR if signed by a general officer).  LOR/MOR’s are, in essence, issued to record reprimands, admonitions or censures of officer or enlisted personnel.  These documents are administrative in nature and are not considered nonjudicial punishments imposed under the provisions of 
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Unfavorable information may include indications of substandard leadership abilities, promotion potential, morals, and integrity.  If these documents are to be filled in the OMPF maintained by the DA, a general officer or the general court-martial authority must approve the filing instructions.  The material must be provided to the soldier for comment or rebuttal prior to filing in the OMPF, or local military personnel files.  Removal from the OMPF may be made at the direction of the DASEB or this Board. 

33.  Army Regulation 635-205, provides the policy and procedures for preparation of enlisted evaluation reports.  Chapter 2 of that regulation outlines the criteria for the rater, senior rater and reviewer.  Essentially, the rater is the next senior official in the operational or supervisory chain of command, who is senior by rank or date of rank to the ratee.  The rater must be in a supervisory position for at least 90 days, except in the case of death or incapacity, or for a relief for cause report.  Paragraph 2-8 of that regulation specifies that If the rater is incapacitated, or dies, the senior rater will serve as both the rater and the senior rater.  In the case of a relief for cause report, paragraph 2-10 specifies that the rater must be in a supervisory role for a minimum of 30 days.  Further, paragraph 3-4 provides that if the rater becomes incapacitated, or otherwise is unable to render a report, and the rating period has been less than 90 days, the period is declared nonrated, and a new rater is designated.  If the rating period is more than 90 days, the senior rater will perform the duties of both the rater and 

the senior rater, provided he or she has been the senior rater for the minimum 
90 days.  

34.  Appendix E to Army Regulation 635-205, provides for the maintenance of Unit Rating Schemes and the procedures for update of the scheme upon changes of rating officials.  

35.  Paragraph 2-10e of that same regulation specifies that date of relief establishes the “thru” date of the relief for cause report.

36.  Under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-185, the regulation under which this Board operates, it is not investigative in nature.  It is incumbent on an applicant to provide evidence of error or injustice, in that there is a presumption of regularity in what the Army did was proper.  Further, the Board is not punitive in nature, and may not direct disciplinary action against Army officials.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board is satisfied from the evidence of record, the statements taken by the MPI, that the applicant and the trainee were found in a compromising situation on 24 November 1997.  This situation clearly met the criteria for titling him for fraternization on the MPR. 

2.  As a senior NCO and as an instructor, the applicant had the responsibility to insure that under no circumstances should he place himself in such a situation.  

3.  The Board further concludes that he was properly relieved for cause and was immediately assigned to new duties, at least on a temporary basis from 
25 November 1997 until the majority of the investigation was completed.  At that time, in early February, the relieving official, the battalion commander, saw fit to issue him a relief for cause memorandum and to see that he was permanently reassigned to another battalion in the 1st Aviation Brigade.

4.  As in many such situations, the administrative recording and resolution of the matter is not always clear-cut.  Further, Army regulations, while regulatory in nature, cannot always be written to cover every contingency.  

5.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the relief for cause memorandum, dated 5 February 1998, and the MOR written by the battalion commander on 10 March 1998, were both proper and fairly stated the facts in the case.  That the battalion commander stated a wrong duty title in the MOR is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to remove the MOR from his records.  The Board does not agree with the applicant that the MOR stated he committed adultery.  Rather, it stated that he engaged in misconduct by entering into an improper relationship with a trainee.  
6.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s and the trainee’s statements of innocence, the Board is more convinced that the applicant was observed by another NCO in a compromising situation, and the trainee confirmed the incident to another trainee. The Board is not convinced that race, the desire of the other NCO to get the applicant’s job or any other motive drove the events in this case.

7.  However, the Board is not convinced that the NCOER was fairly rendered.  The Board notes that the applicant’s rater was present for duty through December 1997.  He had been the applicant’s supervisor for at least 30 days, the minimum rating period for a relief for cause NCOER.  Even if the investigation was ongoing, the Board notes that the report was completed on 9 January 1998, only 10 days after the ending date of the report.  The designated rater could have completed the report within 30 days after the ending date of the report, as required in the case of relief for cause NCOER’s.  

8.  There is no evidence available that shows that a new rating scheme or other document was ever issued designating the SGM, acting in his capacity as the committee chief, as the applicant’s rater during the period October through December 1997.  Therefore the Board concludes that the SGM was not the designated rater for this period.  Further, just because the battalion commander was the reviewer under the old rating scheme, did not make him automatically the senior rater, and likewise the brigade commander as the new reviewer.

9.  Accordingly, the Board concludes that the relief for cause NCOER should be removed from the applicant’s records and it be returned to this Board for filing, and that the appropriate designation be placed in his OMPF that the rating period October through December 1997 be declared a nonrated period.    

10.  Since the NCOER served as one of the basis for the removal of the applicant’s name from the standing promotion list to pay grade E-8 in 1998, it would be appropriate that the applicant’s records again be reviewed by STAB action to determine if removal action was warranted.  Further, if his records would have been reviewed by any centralized promotion selection boards between February 1998 and the date of this action, his corrected records should be referred for further STAB action.     

11.  In the absence of regulatory authority, the Board declines to conduct a further investigation into this matter, and/or to issue any type of directive for disciplinary action to be taken.  If the applicant believes disciplinary action is warranted in his case, he should pursue this through command or Equal Opportunity complaint channels.  

12. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing:

	a.  that the relief for cause NCOER rendered on the individual concerned for the rating period October through December 1997 be removed from the performance fiche on his OMPF;

b.  that an appropriate entry be placed in his OMPF that the rating period October through December 1997 has been declared a nonrated period;.

c.  that upon completion of the above action, his records be referred for reconsideration by a STAB whether his name should have been removed from the February 1998 DA Army Centralized Promotion List for MSG, pay grade E-8: and

d.  that, if not selected by STAB action for reinstatement on the February 1998 promotion list, his records should then be referred for STAB consideration by any other MSG, E-8 promotion selection board which convened since early 1998.  

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

3.  That in accordance with paragraph 21e, Army Regulation 15-185, following completion of the administrative corrections directed herein, the proceedings of the Board and all documents related to this appeal be returned to this Board for permanent filing.

BOARD VOTE:  

_CMF___  __JAE___  __LE___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		        Calvin M. Fowler
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999020976	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT IN PART	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DASA	
ISSUES         1.	111.02	
2.	134.01	
3.	134.02	
4.		
5.		
6.