MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022641

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Hubert S. Shaw, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the withdrawal of his Federal recognition be rescinded, that his membership in the Ohio Army National Guard (ARNG) be restored and that his flight status be reinstated.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the withdrawal of his Federal recognition was unjustified and should not have taken place.  In support of his application, he submitted a letter of explanation and eight folders of information as follows:  #1) Documentation clarifying that substandard performance of duty was the basis for the board action;  #2) Copies of OER’s [officer evaluation reports] covering [his] entire time with the Ohio National Guard;  #3) National Guard Retirement Point’s Statement;  #4) Flight Evaluation Grade Slips & Findings of the Flight Evaluation Board;  #5) Dissenting opinion of board member CW4 [name omitted]; #6) Bibliography of military and civilian history & letters of support;  #7) Summary transcripts of the Federal Recognition Board proceedings; and  #8) Findings of the Board & Memorandum for CPT [name omitted] noting errors in the board proceedings.  All information provided by the applicant, including the eight folders, were provided to the Board.  

In his letter of explanation, the applicant states the basis for withdrawal of his Federal recognition were:  “Downward trend in overall performance resulting in unacceptable record of efficiency or a consistent record of mediocre service” and “Failure to meet standards for students in a course of instruction as a service school due to disciplinary reasons, or academic or leadership deficiencies.”  He states that a Federal Recognition Board (FRB) found that he “ demonstrated a consistent record of mediocre service”, but that this finding is totally inaccurate, it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is not based on facts evidenced in the records, and the evidence does not satisfy the requirements of the regulation for withdrawal of Federal recognition.  The applicant concludes that he has submitted eight folders of information which will prove that withdrawal of his Federal recognition is “unjust”.

The applicant states that his case is based on the following 13 statements.  In summary he contends:

	1)  Ten years of OER’s clearly show above average performance. 

	2)  He had perfect drill attendance for ten years and many additional retirement points credited for active duty schools, correspondence courses and extra duty.

	3)  He received no counseling for performance problems within 36 months prior to initiation of the withdrawal of his Federal recognition.

	4)  His flight proficiency withstood a flight evaluation board (FEB). 

	5)  Even though he was overwhelmed with personal problems, he continued to fulfill his obligations, responsibilities and commitments at a level beyond which was required. 

	6)  At the time of the FRB action, his current flight record contained 11 satisfactory out of 12 evaluations and the unsatisfactory grade slip showed 17 of the 18 maneuvers were satisfactory.

	7)  The FRB was in error when it disregarded regulations and ignored evidence and testimony.

	8)  His entire career, beginning in 1977, could be accurately described as “outstanding.”

	9)  Judging from his success in the civilian sector and the fact he is maintaining a 4.0 grade point average while pursuing a degree at Kent State University would indicate that he has the intellectual and management skills that could be an asset to the National Guard.

	10)  The Federal recognition withdrawal packet submitted to Headquarters, First Army was incomplete in that it was missing 7 satisfactory grade slips and the recommendations of the FEB.

	11)  Ten of the grade slips used as evidence against him came from his historical file, were not part of his current file, and were not complete.

	12)   The action to withdraw his Federal recognition was initiated by a new Squadron Commander, who had only been in command for four months.  The Squadron Commander testified that he initiated this action without all the facts, he had no opportunity to personally evaluate the applicant, he may have been unfair to the applicant, there was no downward trend in performance and he would no longer recommend withdrawal of his Federal recognition.

	13)  The applicant’s Troop Commander testified there was no downward trend in the applicant’s performance, that the applicant’s performance was not sub-standard, and he would not have taken action against him.  

The applicant concluded that any one of “these statements cast serious shadows on the validity of the action that was taken against [him]” and “collectively they show that a serious injustice was committed that destroyed a soldier’s career.”

In Folder #1, the applicant sets forth issues related to the meaning of “Downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency or a consistent record of mediocre service.”  The applicant states that his counsel contends that the FRB took part of that subparagraph out of context and used it as the basis for withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition when the FRB found that the applicant demonstrated “a consistent record of mediocre service.” 

The applicant also states that the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (Copyright 1993) defines “mediocre” as “barely adequate”, “rather poor or inferior.”  He states that the title of the paragraph cited as a basis for withdrawal of his Federal recognition is “Substandard performance of duty” which indicates that the performance level would have to be substandard or below standard to satisfy the intent of the regulation.  The applicant also states that he attempted to obtain a legal definition of “mediocre” and received no adequate response.  

The applicant then provides a copy of a 23 February 1997 memorandum, prepared by the counsel representing him at the FRB, addressing the errors in the FRB proceedings.   Counsel argues that the FRB ignored that portion of NGR 635-101 [the National Guard Regulation which governs Efficiency and Physical Fitness Boards] concerning a downward trend which counsel contends is essential to a determination of mediocre performance.  Counsel also contends that there was no downward trend in the applicant’s performance, rather that it was improving and that his Officer Evaluation Reports (OER) “showed anything but a consistent record of mediocre service.”  Counsel also contends that, while the applicant’s Evaluation/Flight Training Grade Slips show some unsatisfactory ratings, they were intended to highlight areas for training, there were “far” more satisfactory ratings than unsatisfactory ratings, and the excellent ratings would never have been given if the applicant’s aviation performance was mediocre.  Counsel then states that the applicant’s squadron commander and troop commander might not have been fair in recommending withdrawal of his Federal recognition in view of evidence of additional satisfactory flight evaluations and the favorable decision of a flight evaluation board (FEB) in the applicant’s case.  Counsel also contended that the proceedings of the FRB were tainted in view of a pre-hearing discussions between the President of the FRB and the Ohio ARNG State Aviation Officer, that the squadron commander initiated the withdrawal action without all the facts, and that the legal advisor took references to the board, during closed session, without the presence of the applicant’s counsel or the recorder in contravention of Army Regulation 15-6.

In Folder #1, the applicant also presented a copy of his 8 August 1997 memorandum to the proponent for NGR 635-101 at the National Guard Bureau (NGB).  In this memorandum, the applicant requested clarification of “overall performance”, “consistent record”, “mediocre”, and “service”.  Folder #1 also contains the response, dated 9 October 1977, from NGB to the applicant.

Folder #2 contains the OER’s received by the applicant while in the Ohio ARNG. The applicant draws particular attention to Parts IV and V which he states “deal directly with actual performance during the rating period.”  He points out the ratings are based on five levels and that performance in the top two blocks “cannot be conceived as mediocre”.  He also points out that the regulation cited for withdrawal of his Federal recognition is NGR 635-101, Section II,
paragraph 8 (Substandard performance of duty), subparagraphs a and d. [Paragraph 8a states:  “Downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency or a consistent record of mediocre service.  Paragraph 8d states:  “Failure to meet standards for students in a course of instruction at a service school due to disciplinary reasons, or academic or leadership deficiencies.]

Folder #3 contains the applicant’s ARNG Retirement Points History Statement.  The applicant pointed out that he traveled a substantial distance (110 miles one way) to attend drill.  He also states that he had perfect attendance at drill and annual training and sought additional retirement points through extra flight training periods, active duty schools, correspondence courses and special service missions.  He contends that participation and drill attendance should “carry a lot of weight when reviewing a soldiers overall performance, and [his] could be more accurately described as excellent rather than mediocre or substandard.”

Folder #4 contains the report of a flight evaluation board, which convened on 2 November 1995.  This report shows that a board of officers found:  “There is insufficient evidence regarding marginal performance in this past year.”  The board’s recommendation was:  “Respondent be authorized to continue on NGB Aviation Service Orders with the Ohio National Guard.”  The folder also contains 12 DA Forms 4507-R (Standard Evaluation/Training Grade Slip) of which 11 show satisfactory ratings and one, dated 24 August 1995, shows the overall grade for that flight as unsatisfactory.  The 13 May 1995 evaluation was rated overall as satisfactory, but was unsatisfactory for safety procedures and the 16 September 1995 training flight evaluation was rated as “marginally satisfactory” with five noted deficiencies.

The applicant states the findings of the flight evaluation board, composed of senior aviators, show that his flying performance did not warrant suspension of his flight status.  He also states that all of his most recent flight evaluations are satisfactory.  He contends that the results of the flight evaluation board and seven of the 12 evaluations in Folder #4 were not submitted to Headquarters, First United States Army as part of the action to withdraw his Federal recognition.

Folder #5 contains the dissenting opinion by the CW4 who was a member of the FRB.  The dissenting opinion is cited in its entirety as follows: 

	“1.  I feel that the government has failed to provide substantial evidence to withdraw [the applicant’s name omitted] federal recognition for the following reasons:  

		a.  The APFT administered to [the applicant] was not in accordance 	with FM 21-20.  This voids his failure, which precipitated this board action.

		b.  The APFT was the catalyst for this board action.

		c.  The government failed to show a downward trend in [the 	applicant’s] flying proficiency; in fact, testimony showed that [the 		applicant’s] flying skills were very adequate.

		d.  Extenuating circumstances played a vital part in [the applicant’s] 	perceived substandard service, i.e..

			1.  going through a divorce.

			2.  a long drawn-out custody battle.

			3.  attempting to improve his civilian education while meeting 			his military obligations.

			4.  home of record is two hours from his unit and flight 				facility.

		e.  [The applicant’s] CO., [name omitted] testified that the 	[applicant’s] federal recognition should not be withdrawn.

		f.  The Bn [battalion] Commander who initiated this board action stated that given the information that was brought out by defense counsel, he would 	not have initiated the action.

	2.  It is my position that to an appropriate degree, the down sizing and over strength in the Ohio Army National Guard pilot’s force influenced the outcome of this boards action.”

Folder #6 contains the applicant’s autobiography, two letters of support, numerous certificates of achievement and training, a newspaper article, a certificate for award of the Army Commendation Medal, and letters of appreciation all dated between 1978 and 1988.  This folder also contains Spring and Fall Semester Transcripts for 1998 from Kent State University.  The applicant points out that there was a brief period in his life where he experienced a slump due to many circumstances, but that he continued to meet challenges, fulfill his commitments and did not give up.  He also believes that the fact he did not give up makes a “distinct statement” about his character and through the worst of it his “overall performance could not be described as substandard or mediocre.”  

Folder #7 contains a summary transcript of the FRB proceedings.  This document is not discussed at this point because it is addressed later in this Memorandum of Consideration.

Folder #8 contains a copy of the 23 February 1997 memorandum, prepared by the counsel representing the applicant at the FRB, which discusses errors in the FRB proceedings.  This folder also contains the dissent by the CW4 who was a board member.  Both of these documents have been described previously; therefore, they are not repeated here.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That, the American Legion as counsel for the applicant, supports his request.  Counsel states that the records submitted by the applicant show that his service was “more than satisfactory.”  Counsel also point out that there was a dissenting member of the board which considered withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition.  This dissent is based on the “firm belief” that the Government failed to show a downward trend in the applicant’s “flying skills” and that the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) in question was not in accordance with the governing Army regulation.  Counsel also states that the dissenting member of the Board pointed out extenuating circumstances involving the applicant’s personal life and that the battalion commander who initiated the board action would not have done so if he had known certain facts brought out by the applicant’s counsel.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant entered active duty on 5 July 1977 and served as an attack helicopter repairman until he was honorably discharged on 4 July 1980.  He was assigned to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) until he had a break in service from December 1984 to December 1986.  The applicant returned to the Army Reserve in an enlisted status and was discharged on 4 February 1987 to accept appointment as a Reserve warrant officer.  He completed the Rotary Wing Aviation Training followed by service in an Army Reserve aviation unit.

The applicant transferred to an aviation position in the 4th Squadron of the 107th Armored Cavalry Regiment, in the Ohio Army National Guard (ARNG) on 12 January 1988.

Records show that, during the period November 1992 through March 1995, the applicant received approximately 30 satisfactory flight training evaluations recorded on DA Forms 4507-R (Standard Evaluation/Training Grade Slip).  

However, records also show that the applicant received two unsatisfactory evaluations in March 1993, one in August 1993, one in January 1994, two in March 1994, two in June 1994, and one in August 1995.  In addition, records show a waiver of Aircrew Training Program (ATP) requirements in February 1990 and counseling in April 1991 and February 1992 for failure to meet ATP requirements. 

In May 1995 the applicant was assigned as a student at the Aviation Warrant Officer Advance Course (AWOAC) at Fort Rucker, Alabama.  An Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, dated 30 May 1995, shows the applicant failed a record APFT, with no events meeting the minimum score of 60 points.  On 2 June 1995, the applicant was counseled on his APFT failure, was advised that his next APFT was scheduled for 12 June 1995, and was advised that failure of this test would result in his removal from AWOAC.  The applicant subsequently obtained a temporary profile.  The Chief of the AWOAC prepared a memorandum to the Ohio ARNG State Aviation Officer regarding the applicant’s dismissal from AWOAC which described the applicant’s unprofessional and argumentative behavior.  By memorandum, dated 22 June 1995, the commander of the Aviation Brigade at Fort Rucker announced the applicant was administratively eliminated from AWOAC “for failure of APFT for enrollment” with a recommendation that the applicant “should not be considered for further training a later date.”

By memorandum dated 10 July 1995, the applicant’s Squadron Commander advised the applicant that APFT incident at Fort Rucker was an embarrassment and directed that the applicant “retake the APFT no earlier than 31 Aug 95 and no later than close of business on 15 Sep 95.”  This memorandum provided instructions on coordination for the APFT and directed that documentation was required in the event illness or injury prevented the applicant from taking this APFT.  The Squadron Commander also notified the applicant’s Troop Commander to assure the APFT was conducted and notified a squadron staff officer to administer “a no-notice standardization evaluation with an oral examination NLT [not later than] 30 Aug 95.”

The applicant was administered a “no-notice” flight evaluation which was graded as unsatisfactory and resulted in a recommendation to suspend duties as a “PI” [pilot in command] and recommendations for additional flight and academic training.

On 17 September 1995, the Squadron Commander counseled the applicant for “lack of satisfactory performance in reference to:

	*Continued poor performance in flight duties and not expending an effort to regain PC [pilot in command] status (1993-1995)

	*Failure of APFT at Fort Rucker, AL, which resulted in his elimination from the AWOAC Course (Jun 95)

	*His conduct at Ft. Rucker, AL, in regards to his elimination (Jun 95)

	*Unsatisfactory no notice flight evaluation (24 Aug 95)

	*Failure to complete APFT in designated time period (31 Aug 95-15 Sep 95).”

During this counseling the Squadron Commander discussed the applicant’s downward trend in performance and record of mediocre service, failure to perform with technical proficiency required of his grade, failure to meet standards as a student, unwillingness to expend effort, the unsatisfactory no-notice flight evaluation and failure to complete the APFT as directed.  The Squadron Commander then advised of his intent to withdraw the applicant’s Federal recognition, provided the applicant with a copy of the NGR 635-101, advised the applicant that he could resign in lieu of the proceeding to withdraw Federal recognition, and that the applicant could not transfer to the IRR [Individual Ready Reserve] or ING [Inactive National Guard] unless authorized by higher authority. 

On 19 September 1995, the applicant’s Squadron Commander requested that the commander of ARNG Aviation Support Facility #1 convene a FEB to determine the applicant’s continued aviation service.  The Squadron Commander wrote that the applicant needs in excess of 20 hours and an instrument flight evaluation in order to complete ATP requirements for training year 1995 [which ended on the last day of September 1995] and that the applicant has not scheduled himself for any flight periods in the eight remaining working days of this training year.  The Squadron Commander also advised that he had counseled the applicant on 17 September 1995 for substandard performance and was initiating action to withdraw Federal recognition.  Further, the Squadron Commander advised that, on 19 September 1995, the Troop Commander notified him the applicant was medically grounding himself due to stress.  The Squadron Commander cited the applicant’s past record of substandard performance and the applicant’s lack of motivation or desire to improve proficiency or regain pilot in command status.  The Squadron Commander concluded that the applicant is using the medical grounding to relieve himself of his ATP requirements and questioned whether the applicant’s continued aviation service will be in the best interest of the Ohio National Guard.

On 20 September 1995, the Squadron Commander recommended to the Adjutant General of the Ohio National Guard that the applicant’s Federal recognition be withdrawn for “sub-standard performance of duty.”  The Squadron Commander cited elimination from AWOAC, “marginal” skills as an aviator, revocation of his pilot in command orders, failure to retake the APFT and failure of a “no-notice checkride” as bases for withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition.

On 2 November 1995 a flight evaluation board convened to determine if the applicant should continue on flight status.  This report shows that a board of officers found:  “There is insufficient evidence regarding marginal performance in this past year.”  The board’s recommendation was:  “Respondent be authorized to continue on NGB Aviation Service Orders with the Ohio National Guard.” 

On 11 December 1995, the Commanding General of First United States Army (a lieutenant general) notified the applicant that a “sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of your Federal Recognition in the Army National Guard for substandard performance of duty, NGR 635-101, paragraph 8.”  This memorandum also set forth the applicant’s options and suspenses.

On 2 January 1996, the applicant responded to First Army Headquarters that he desired a hearing before a board of officers, representation by counsel, copies of records and documents submitted to the board of officers and to submit statements in his own behalf. 

By a 12 March 1996 memorandum, the applicant was notified that a FRB would be convened on 4 May 1996 to consider withdrawal of his Federal recognition under the provisions of NGR 635-101 as a result of substandard performance of duty.  This memorandum stated the bases for this action were:

	a.  “Downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency or a consistent record of mediocre service, and

	b.  Failure to meet standards for students in a course of instruction at a service school due to disciplinary reasons, or academic or leadership deficiencies.”

The applicant acknowledged the FRB hearing on 4 April 1996.

The FRB convened on 4 May 1996.  The applicant was present with counsel.  A lieutenant colonel served as the recorder, a civilian as the reporter, and a Judge Advocate General Corps major served as the legal advisor to the FRB.  A colonel was president of the board of officers which also included another colonel, a major and chief warrant officer four as members.  After challenges were considered and “voire dire” was conducted, the FRB was sworn.

The applicant testified first and told the board of his military history.  He explained that he had no trouble maintaining his flight status, but he had been granted extensions in 1990 and 1992 because he did not meet minimum flight time.  The applicant addressed the unsatisfactory flight evaluations and that one evaluation was unsatisfactory because he had a personality conflict with the evaluator.  He also cited evaluations which show that he was marginally satisfactory, a month later had made noticeable improvements and finally that all cockpit procedures were average.  The applicant also addressed the APFT failure at Fort Rucker.  He stated that he took and passed an APFT before he left for AWOAC.  He contends that there was a statement, which seems to have been lost, attached to the APFT explaining that the applicant had a sore shoulder.  The applicant stated that he was placed on seven day profile for a strained shoulder and was prepared to take the test the day after the profile expired.  He claims that he was told the APFT would be given the next day and proceeded to work out, but the test was given that day and he failed the pushups by one and then did not put forth much effort to pass the rest of the test.  

The applicant’s counsel pointed out that the applicant’s unsatisfactory evaluations occurred in 1994 and that evaluations in 1995 were satisfactory, thereby showing an upward trend.

The board asked the applicant what his APFT score was prior to leaving for Fort Rucker, but he stated that he did not know what the score was.  

The applicant’s commanding officer from 1989 to April 1993 was called as the next witness.  This captain testified essentially that the applicant’s OER showed him as average and that the applicant was counseled twice for failure to meet flight hour requirements. The witness also stated that two no-notice flight evaluations were the minimum annually and that 12 unsatisfactory flight evaluations would be considered “excessive”, but the applicant met requirements after he was granted an extension of time to meet flight hour requirements.

The next witness was the Squadron Commander and the officer who recommended withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition.  This lieutenant colonel testified that after dismissal from AWOAC, he determined that records show the applicant’s performance was at best “marginal” and that there was sufficient cause to request a no-notice checkride of the applicant.  The checkride was unsatisfactory, and the Squadron Commander testified that he also felt the need to act on the information from Fort Rucker and the fact the applicant did not take the APFT as he had ordered.  The witness also testified that the applicant was 15 hours shy of meeting his minimum requirements for the current fiscal year [1995], that the applicant could not possibly meet his flight minimums, and that several days later the applicant grounded himself due to stress, thus relieving himself of the requirement to complete his flight hour minimums.  The witness was questioned about the applicant’s satisfactory flight evaluation on 18 September 1995, but he did not know of this evaluation and several others introduced by respondent’s counsel.  Based on knowledge of these new satisfactory evaluations, the Squadron Commander stated that he would no longer say there is a downward trend in the applicant’s overall performance.  The Squadron Commander was also questioned regarding flight evaluation boards for other aviators with unsatisfactory evaluations.  He responded that no one had more unsatisfactory evaluations than the applicant and that he does not know of any other aviator removed from AWOAC.  Regarding the submission of evaluations, the Squadron Commander stated that he put favorable evaluations in the FEB packet to show that the applicant’s pattern of marginal performance occurred even when his evaluations were satisfactory.  

In conclusion, the FRB asked questions of the Squadron Commander to which he answered that he does not now recommend withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition, but that he changed his recommendation because he felt like he was on trial, not the applicant.  He stated that the documentation was adequate to convene a FRB, but after going through it, he may have been unfair to the applicant.

The Government rested its case at this point and the applicant offered to rest if the FRB had felt it had heard enough evidence.  The FRB elected to continue.

The applicant’s counsel called the applicant’s current Troop Commander and questioned him regarding two OER’s the troop commander prepared on the applicant.  This witness testified that the applicant was not a “stellar aviator but he had no problems with the applicant, that no downward trend in performance was noted, that his performance was “adequate not sub-standard”, and that he had not been requested to grant any extensions to allow the applicant to meet flight training requirements.  The Troop Commander also stated that one of the OER’s showed that the applicant could not complete his minimum requirements because of medical grounding, but was helpful in other areas.  The Troop Commander also stated that he did not know the outcome of the FEB and that he would not have requested a FEB for the applicant because he has improved over the past year.  He also stated that he would give the applicant the benefit of the doubt about the events at Fort Rucker. The Troop Commander also stated that there was a bit of a downward trend in the applicant’s performance when these proceedings were announced, but it was probably due to the stress from the events and it is prudent for an aviator to ground himself if affected by stress.  The Troop Commander stated that no more than two unsatisfactory performance evaluations would be normal and the applicant is not “IP” [Instructor Pilot] material.  In response to questions from the FRB, the Troop Commander did not know why the applicant did not take the APFT ordered by the Squadron Commander and that the applicant could “reestablish” a reasonable level of flying professionalism.

The next witness was the Instructor Pilot who had rendered many of the applicant’s flight evaluations.  He stated that he had flown with the applicant more than 100 times and assessed him as a “satisfactory pilot, not stellar or sub-standard.  This witness stated that “history file” covers the aviators entire history at that ARNG flight facility and that a record of ten unsatisfactory rating over two years is not unusual.  This Instructor Pilot also testified that he would never rate someone who is consistently mediocre as excellent and some of the applicant’s ratings were excellent.  The witness also stated that he did not know why some of the applicant’s unsatisfactory evaluations were missing from his history file and that he knew of the decline in the applicant’s performance, but that there was improvement after that period.  During cross examination, the Instructor Pilot explained that simulated engine failure, among other procedures was a problem for the applicant, that fluctuating back and forth between PI and PC [ pilot in command and co-pilot] was common for many aviators and that the applicant is not a stellar pilot because of experience and opportunity, but his track record does not show that he will ever be stellar.  In response to questions from the FRB, the witness stated that the applicant’s unsatisfactory maneuver is very complex and Guard aviators are not given sufficient time to practice it and can’t practice it by themselves.  The Instructor Pilot stated that he was not aware of the applicant’s performance as a soldier, only as a pilot.

The FRB then questioned the applicant.  The applicant stated that he did not take the APFT ordered by the Squadron Commander because of a shoulder problem and that he attempted to notify the Squadron Commander of this problem, but received no response.  The applicant also stated that the regulation cited by the Squadron Commander applied to active duty personnel and that he did not have to take the test within that time-frame.  The applicant also testified that he went through the chain of command at Fort Rucker and was allowed to remain in AWOAC; however, he contends that he was forced to take the APFT before the required time of recovery was given and that he felt intimidated into taking the APFT without time to recover.  The applicant also testified that the Inspector General (IG) at Fort Rucker investigated and was advised that the applicant was not being eliminated for failing the APFT, but for the profile.  The applicant also states that it was decided that it would be better for him to go home to heal, then return to AWOAC later.  He also contends that his unit had been informed of the situation at Fort Rucker and had already formed a biased opinion of what happened.  The applicant testified that he would not have a problem staying with the unit if given the opportunity.  He then explained the events which led up to him grounding himself and stated that, once these proceedings were over, he could be returned to flight status without problems with stress.  The applicant stated that he might not set standards for himself as high as he ought to, but he had to balance his civilian life with his military life.  The applicant also stated that he was not experiencing any difficulties at Fort Rucker and wanted to return, but did want to wait a while because of the conflict he encountered there.

Based on questions by the Recorder, testimony by the applicant revealed that there is no civilian education requirement for advancement from CW2 to CW3; the applicant had been taking correspondence course and courses at Erie Technical College; he went to school four nights per week from 1991 through 1994; he went through a divorce in 1990, but has been remarried for five years; he was awarded custody of a son from his first marriage a week before reporting to Fort Rucker; he is a tool and die maker; and many of his problems are now settled, i.e. custody, divorce and night school.

The FRB adjourned to await records and reconvened on 5 May 1996.  The FRB was advised of their responsibilities by the legal advisor.  The FRB began deliberations in closed session at 9:20 am.  At 12:55 pm, the FRB reconvened for the presentation of findings and recommendations.

The President of the FRB stated that the board took several things into consideration including their responsibilities to the National Guard and all evidence presented.  He then announced the announced the findings of the board.  First, that the board by a vote of three to one found that the applicant “has demonstrated a consistent record of mediocre service.”  Secondly, the FRB found unanimously that the applicant failed the APFT while attending a service school at Fort Rucker, Alabama, but that this APFT failure did “not provide a substantial basis” to withdraw the applicant’s Federal recognition.  In view of these findings, the board recommendation was to withdraw the applicant’s Federal recognition.

The State Judge Advocate of the Ohio National Guard conducted a legal review of the proceedings of the FRB and opined: “the Board was lawfully appointed and constituted and its proceedings were legally correct and legally sufficient, and that any errors or irregularities in the proceedings, as noted below, constituted harmless errors in that they did not have a material adverse effect on the Respondent’s rights.”  The legal review required certain corrections to the FRB proceedings.  The legal review also found that the challenge by the applicant’s counsel to a CW4 as a board member was correctly overruled by the Legal Advisor to the FRB.  The applicant’s counsel also objected that there was no medical officer as a member of the FRB, but the Legal Advisor was found to have ruled correctly in denying the objection.  The statement for the record made by the applicant’s counsel regarding the Legal Advisor’s presence with the FRB during closed session was not a violation of the Army Regulation 15-6 which governs investigations and board proceedings.

The legal review also addressed errors assigned by the applicant’s counsel after the FRB hearing.  The applicant’s counsel requested a verbatim transcript of the hearing which was determined not to be timely since it did not occur before the hearing and the appointing authority did not direct a verbatim transcript; therefore, the recorder was not prepared to take verbatim record of testimony.  The applicant’s counsel raised the issue of the FRB President discussing the case with the State Aviation Officer.  The State Judge Advocate found that, since the applicant’s counsel challenged the CW4 but did not challenge the President of the board, the applicant had waived his objection to the President sitting as a board member.  Regarding the actions of the Legal Advisor with the FRB during closed session, the State Judge Advocate again found that the Legal Advisor’s assistance in preparation of the findings and editing the minority opinion during closed session made the Legal Advisor’s actions part of the proceedings and that the applicant’s rights were not prejudiced.  The applicant’s counsel also contended that the FRB finding that the applicant demonstrated a consistent record of mediocre service is contrary to paragraph 8 of NGR 635-101 and is devoid of evidentiary support.  The State Judge Advocate found, in effect, that NGR 635-101, paragraph 8, authorizes withdrawal of Federal recognition for a downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency or a consistent record of mediocre service.  Army Regulation 135-175 (Separation of Officers), paragraph 2-11 also uses the same language with the addition of “indicating the officer has reached the peak of his potential” after the word “service”.  The State Judge Advocate also stated that the record amply supports the finding of mediocre service.

The FRB proceeding and the legal review were forwarded to Headquarters, First United States Army for appropriate action on 11 October 1996.  On 30 October 1996, the Commanding General of First Army forwarded the board proceedings to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau for approval and noted that “The case had been reviewed by the First Army Staff Judge Advocate and determined to be legally sufficient.”

On 11 December 1996, a National Guard Bureau attorney announced that the FRB proceedings had been reviewed.  In rendering his opinion, the NGB lawyer agreed that the failure to challenge the President of the FRB constituted a waiver; that the Legal Advisor’s providing references and helping to review findings outside the presence of the applicant or his counsel are harmless and do not constitute prejudice of the applicant’s rights; and that no material errors or irregularities were present in the proceedings.  The NGB Judge Advocate concluded that the FRB’s finding of mediocre performance was supported by the evidence and is sufficient as a basis for withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition under paragraph 8 of NGR 635-101.

By memorandum dated 23 May 1997, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau announced approval of the findings and the recommendation to withdraw the Federal recognition of the applicant.  The National Guard Bureau promulgated Special Orders Number 109 AR, dated 5 June 1997, which withdrew the applicant’s Federal recognition effective 2 June 1997.

On 2 June 1997, the applicant was separated from the Ohio ARNG and was separated as a Reserve of the Army.  The applicant’s NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows that he separated under the provisions of NGR 600-101 by reason of withdrawal of Federal recognition. 

The applicant’s evaluation history as a warrant officer in the Ohio ARNG shows ten OER’s which were all completed on the DA Form 67-8.   In these OER’s, the applicant received numerous ratings of “2” and several ratings of “3” (on a scale of 1 as the highest rating and 5 as the lowest rating) in the 14 elements of professional competence.  He also generally received one or two positive comments under professional ethics and competence on each of his ten OER’s, but in one instance there was a comment that he should correct his appearance.

The rating officials for the applicant’s ten OER’s placed him in the top block (Always Exceeded Requirements) on one OER, placed him in the second block (Usually Exceeded Requirements) on eight OER’s, and placed him in the third block (Met Requirements) on one OER.  Under Part Vc (Comments on Specific Aspects of the Performance), the rating officials generally made brief descriptive comments on the applicant’s duties.

All ten ratings in Part Vd (This Officer’s Potential for Promotion to the Next Higher Grade) were in the second block (Promote with Contemporaries).  The rating officials generally made comments on potential which focused on obtaining more civilian and military education, the need to accept additional responsibilities to round out his experience, the need for continued self-improvement, confirmation of the applicant’s potential to perform in future aviation assignments, recommendations to concentrate on aviation tasks, and assessments that he could develop into a well rounded senior warrant officer.

The ten OER’s received by the applicant during his tenure in the Ohio ARNG were senior rated by five different officers.  Nine of the applicant’s OER’s were  senior rated by one major (who also was the applicant’s SR as a lieutenant colonel) and three other lieutenant colonels who were commanding the 4th Squadron of the 107th Armored Cavalry Regiment at the time they were the senior rater (SR) for the applicant.  The applicant’s final OER was senior rated by a major who was the executive officer of the 1st Battalion of the 137th Assault Helicopter Battalion.

The applicant received lower half center of mass (COM) senior ratings on two OER’s and well below the center of mass (COM) senior ratings on eight OER’s as follows (the asterisk indicates the applicant’s position in the SR profile):  (1/7/11*/0/0/0/0/0/0), (2/4/2/3*/0/0/0/0/0), (15/22/16/11/1*/0/0/0/0), (0/8/0/3/0/1*/0/0/0), (1/14/19/6*/1/0/0/0/0), (3/20/32/18*/1/0/0/0/0), (7/29/41/21*/1/0/0/0/0), (1/11/12*/1/0/0/0/0/0), (4/19/17*/1/0/0/0/0/0), (7/12/15/1/1*/0/0/0/0). 

The comments made by SR’s in Part VII b (Comments) initially stated that the applicant demonstrated great potential and was an outstanding young warrant officer.  There were positive comments regarding substantial strides in improving military and civilian education.  However, there are also several SR comments which focus on the applicant’s need to improve his aviation abilities and two SR’s commented that his performance was only “adequate” during the rated period.  

National Guard Regulation (NGR) 635-101 (Efficiency and Physical Fitness Boards) prescribes the criteria and procedures for determining the capacity and general fitness of commissioned and warrant officers for continued Federal recognition in the Army National Guard.  

Section II of NGR 635-101 states the reasons for action to withdraw Federal recognition.  Paragraph 8 states that the existence of one or more of the following or similar conditions constitutes substandard performance of duty and requires the withdrawal of Federal recognition for incapacity unless the officer successfully proves that recognition should not be withdrawn:  a.) Downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency or a consistent record of mediocre service.  b.) Failure to exercise necessary leadership or command required of an officer of his grade.  c.) Failure to perform with the technical proficiency required of his grade.  d.) Failure to meet standards for students in a course of instruction at a service school due to disciplinary reasons, or academic or leadership deficiencies.  e.) Failure to discharge assignments in a manner to be expected of an officer of his grade and experience.  f.) Apathy, defective attitudes, or other character disorders to include inability or unwillingness to expend effort.

Section III of this regulation governs the initiation and processing of actions to withdraw Federal recognition.  This regulation provides that any commander may initiate action with respect to a junior officer of his command and such an action will be forwarded to the Adjutant General of the National Guard of the pertinent state.  The recommendation of the Adjutant General will be forwarded to the appropriate Army Area Commander who may return the case for further action, disapprove the action or appoint or direct appointment of an investigating officer. If the Army commander determines that sufficient basis exists to initiate action for withdrawal of Federal recognition, the officer will be notified he has 15 days to exercise his options to show cause before a board of officers, submit a resignation in lieu of withdrawal of his Federal recognition, or elect transfer to the Retired Reserve.  In the case where an officer elects a hearing by a board of offices, the Army Commander will appoint such a board.

NGR 635-101, paragraph 15, states that an officer under consideration for withdrawal of his Federal recognition is entitled to appear in person before the board of officers, he is entitled to be furnished copies of the records that will be submitted to the board and other pertinent releasable documents; he is entitled to be represented by appointed military counsel or civilian counsel at his own cost; and he is entitled to reasonable time, defined as 30 days from notification by the Army Commander, to prepare his own case.

NGR 635-101, paragraph 16, provides for actions on recommendations by the board of officers.  The report of the board of officers will be forwarded through the Adjutant General of the National Guard of the applicable state to the Army Commander who will determine if further action is required to obtain more evidence, to correct errors or other defects, or to convene a new board if there is an error which materially prejudiced a substantial right of the officer.  In cases where no further action is required, the Army Commander will make his recommendation for approval or disapproval and forward the case to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.  The Chief of the National Guard Bureau will approve or disapprove the findings and recommendations of the board of officers and will withdraw the officer’s Federal recognition if appropriate.  Upon notification of withdrawal of Federal recognition, the officer will be discharged from Reserve of the Army status.

NGR 600-101 (Warrant Officers-Federal Recognition and Related Personnel Actions) became effective 1 October 1996.  This regulation governs policies and procedures for Army National Guard (ARNG) warrant officer personnel management and implements the provisions of the Warrant Officer Management Act of 1992 pertinent to ARNG warrant officers.  

Chapter 10 of NGR 600-101 provides for the termination of appointment and withdrawal of Federal recognition for ARNG warrant officers.  It states that the withdrawal of Federal recognition of a warrant officer is a function of the Chief, National Guard Bureau.  Paragraph 10-2b states the reasons for which the Federal recognition of a warrant officer of the ARNG will be withdrawn. Among those reasons is:  “(3) Pursuant to the approved findings of a board convened under NGR 635-101 or NGR 635-102.” 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s Squadron Commander recommended withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition based on “sub-standard performance of duty” in accordance with NGR 635-101, paragraphs 8 a, c, d and f, which specifically define substandard performance as a record of mediocre service, failure to perform with technical proficiency, failure to meet standards as a student, and failure to expend effort.

2.  The Adjutant General of Ohio forwarded the recommendation to the Commanding General of First Army who found that there was a basis for withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition.

3.  Consistent with the applicant’s rights, he elected a hearing before a board of officers, representation by appointed military counsel, to receive copies of pertinent records and documents, to appear before the board of officers, and to make statements on his own behalf.
4.  A hearing was held and the board of officers by majority vote (three to one) found that the applicant “has demonstrated a consistent record of mediocre service.”  Secondly, the FRB found unanimously that the applicant failed the APFT while attending a service school at Fort Rucker, Alabama, but that this APFT failure did “not provide a substantial basis” to withdraw the applicant’s Federal recognition.  

5.  Based on its findings, the FRB recommended withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition.

6.  The board proceedings underwent legal review by the Ohio National Guard State Judge Advocate who directed corrections which were made.  The State Judge Advocate also responded to all requests and errors assigned by the applicant’s counsel.  The State Judge Advocate found “the Board was lawfully appointed and constituted and its proceedings were legally correct and legally sufficient, and that any errors or irregularities in the proceedings [as noted in his legal review] constituted harmless errors in that they did not have a material adverse effect on the Respondent’s rights.”  The board proceedings were also reviewed by the First Army Staff Judge Advocate and found legally sufficient.  The NGB counsel also reviewed the proceedings and found the board was properly constituted and had jurisdiction, that the State Judge Advocate had properly responded to the requests and errors assigned by the applicant’s counsel and that there was no evidence that the rights of the applicant were prejudiced or of material errors or irregularities in the proceedings.  The NGB counsel also opined that the board’s finding of mediocre performance is supported by the evidence and is a sufficient basis for withdrawal of Federal recognition under NGR 635-101, paragraph 8a.  [Paragraph 8a states:  “Downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency or a consistent record of mediocre service.”]

7.  The Commanding General of First Army recommended approval of the FRB findings and recommendations, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau approved the recommendations and findings of the FRB.  The Chief of the National Guard Bureau then withdrew the applicant’s Federal recognition.  The applicant was discharged from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the United States.

8.  Based on the foregoing, the withdrawal of the applicant's Federal recognition and subsequent separation form the Ohio ARNG and as a Reserve of the United States was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

9.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his “past 10 years of OER’s clearly show “above average performance.”  The applicant’s OER’s show that more than half of his raters evaluated him lower than the highest rating under Professional Competence for “Seeks self-improvement”, “Sets and enforces high standards”, and “Possesses military bearing and appearance”.  All raters generally evaluated his performance in the second block (Usually Exceeded Requirements) and rated his potential in the second block (Promote with Contemporaries).  However, when SR’s evaluated the applicant against all other warrant officers of the same grade whom they senior rated, he was consistently at the bottom of the SR profile and always in the bottom 20 percent or lower of the warrant officers who were senior rated. 

10.  The Board noted the applicant’s record of drill attendance and the extra retirement points earned through schools, correspondence courses and extra duty.  While the applicant’s drill attendance is noteworthy, the applicant’s overall manner of performance is at issue in this case, and attendance is not the primary consideration in evaluating the overall quality of his duty performance.

11.  The applicant contends that here was no counseling for performance problems within 36 months prior to initiation of the action to withdraw his Federal recognition.  This contention ignores the facts that the applicant received at least eight unsatisfactory flight evaluations within the cited 36 month period, that he was released with from AWOAC for APFT failure with a recommendation that he should not be considered for further training at a later date, that he failed a flight evaluation ordered by the Squadron Commander and that he failed to comply with instructions of the Squadron Commander to take an APFT.  The Squadron Commander notified the applicant by memorandum, dated 10 July 1995, that the incident at Fort Rucker was an embarrassment and directed retaking of the APFT.  The applicant was formally counseled on these matters by the Squadron Commander on 17 September 1995.  

12.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his flight proficiency withstood a FEB, consisting of a panel of senior aviators, without suffering so much as a suspension of flight status.  Evidence shows that a FEB convened on 2 November 1995 recommended that the applicant be authorized to continue on NGB Aviation Service Orders because there was insufficient evidence of marginal performance during the preceding year.  However, this determination does not mitigate the decision to remove the applicant’s Federal recognition.  The FEB requested by the Squadron Commander covered only flight duties during the past year.  However, the action to withdraw Federal recognition addressed the applicant’s overall manner of performance as a warrant officer and an aviator during his entire period of service in the Ohio ARNG.

13.  The applicant contended that his current flight record contained 12 grade slips of which 11 were satisfactory and the unsatisfactory grade slip showed that 17 of 18 maneuvers were satisfactory.  It is noted that these grade slips were considered by the FRB.  However, they represented only a year of the applicant’s nine years of aviation service in the Ohio ARNG and constitute evaluation of only a segment of the applicant’s overall performance and potential.  The Board noted that one of the satisfactory evaluations actually contained an unsatisfactory element, another was determined to be “marginally satisfactory”, the applicant failed the flight evaluation directed by the Squadron Commander and failed to meet his ATP requirements for the 1995 training year.

14.  The applicant contends that the FRB was in error when it disregarded regulations and ignored evidence and testimony that was presented.  Although not specifically stated, the Board concludes that this contention refers to the issue regarding the wording “downward trend” versus the finding by the FRB of a “consistent record of mediocre service.”  In this matter, this Board finds that the applicant has not provided compelling evidence that the FRB improperly disregarded or improperly interpreted the wording of paragraph 8a of NGR 
635-101.  Further, the Board noted that this issue was raised after the FRB by the applicant’s counsel.  Legal officers at Ohio National Guard and NGB levels addressed this issue and concluded the evidence did support the finding by the FRB that the applicant’s performance constituted “mediocre service.”

15.  Regarding the contentions that the FRB ignored evidence and testimony that was presented, the Board finds that the applicant did not submit convincing evidence to support these contentions.  The summary transcript of the FRB shows that the President of the FRB in open session stated that it considered “all evidence presented” in arriving at its findings and recommendations.  The Board noted that there was some evidence and testimony that the applicant was average, but not sub-standard.  However, this was not the only evidence considered and some records clearly show well below average performance, proficiency, and potential by the applicant.

16.  The Board noted the applicant’s contentions that his entire military career could accurately be described as “outstanding.”  This contention is not germane to the issues under consideration in this case because the applicant’s enlisted active duty and Army Reserve service are unrelated to his service as an aviator and his performance in the Ohio ARNG.  Contrary to this contention, the applicant’s testimony, testimony by others, and the applicant’s OER’s and flight evaluation grade slips show that the applicant’s career in the Ohio ARNG was not and could not be accurately described as “outstanding.”

17.  The applicant contends his success in the civilian sector and his 4.0 grade point average at Kent State University indicate that he has the intellectual and management skills that could be an asset to the National Guard.  In this regard, the Board noted that the applicant’s educational achievement has been reflected in his OER’s; however, his raters and SR’s, in the same OER’s consistently indicated that the applicant needed to improve his abilities as an “attack pilot”, “strive toward leadership as a senior warrant”, devote additional effort to his military appearance, and “increase tactical and technical proficiency.”

18.  The applicant contends that the packet forwarded to First Army Headquarters was incomplete in that grade slips and the FEB results were not part of that information.  There is no evidence that all the flight evaluation grade slips received by the applicant were part of the request for withdrawal of Federal recognition submitted by the Squadron Commander on 30 September 1995.  It should be noted that the FEB could not be part of this initial request because the FEB did not occur until 2 November 1995.  However, records show that the FRB proceedings contain all of the flight evaluations submitted by the applicant’s counsel and the recorder.  Further, records show the FEB was discussed in testimony, but, there is no indication that the applicant or his counsel introduced the FEB proceedings into evidence at the FRB.  Thus, the Board finds that, in the absence of action by the applicant or his counsel to enter the FEB proceedings as evidence in the record of the FRB, there is no error or injustice resulting from the absence of the FEB proceedings from records reviewed at Headquarters, First Army.

19.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contention that ten grade slips, which were used against him, came from his historical file and not his current file, the Board finds no error or injustice resulting from the introduction of past flight evaluations.

20.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that the action to withdraw his Federal recognition was initiated by a new Squadron Commander who had no time to personally evaluate the applicant.  In this matter, the Board concluded that the Squadron Commander had sufficient information (records, reports, files) available upon which to determine that withdrawal of Federal recognition was appropriate.  The Squadron Commander also testified that the documentation was sufficient to withdraw Federal recognition.  It also should be noted that the Adjutant General of Ohio, the Commanding General of First Army and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau found the evidence sufficiently compelling to warrant withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition.

21.  The Board noted the applicant’s statements to the effect that the Squadron Commander testified he did not have all the facts and may have been unfair to the applicant, that the Squadron Commander testified to the effect he would no longer say there was a downward trend in the applicant’s overall performance, and that the Squadron Commander testified to the effect he no longer recommended withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition.  However, the Board also noted the Squadron Commander’s testimony that he “felt the documentation was adequate to convene a board” and that he changed his recommendation “because he felt like he was on trial not the respondent.”  The Board noted that the FRB also heard and considered this testimony.

22.  The applicant also stated that his “company commander” [actually the applicant’s Troop Commander] testified that there was no downward trend in the applicant’s performance, that the applicant’s performance was not substandard, and that he would not have taken action against the applicant.  The Board noted that these are the views of the Troop Commander who was not involved in initiating the action to withdraw the applicant’s Federal recognition.  This testimony was also heard and considered by the FRB.

23.  The Board considered all of the matters submitted by the applicant, the applicant’s records and the information attendant to withdrawal of the applicant’s Federal recognition.  From this information, the Board concluded that the applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the procedures followed in withdrawing his Federal were flawed, improper or not in accordance with governing regulations.  The Board also determined that the military officials who made recommendations and were involved in the decision to remove the applicant’s Federal recognition did so on the basis of all evidence available, consistent with law and regulation, and fully cognizant of their obligations to maintain a highly professional and ready military force.  Based on evidence, the applicant has failed to show that these decisions were unjust or in error.

24.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

24.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___DJ___  ___EL___  ___KAK_  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022641	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2000/08/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19970602	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	NGR 600-101	
DISCHARGE REASON	WITHDRAWAL OF FED RECOGNITION	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	MR CHUN	
ISSUES         1.	125.000.000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.