RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           12 February 2004   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089544

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn		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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

The applicant defers to counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 

1.  Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's 1993 request that he be restored to active duty with constructive credit for time in service, time in grade, and, having successfully appealed two Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) with non-credible senior rater (SR) profiles, referral to a Standby Review Board for consideration for promotion to Regular Army lieutenant colonel (LTC).

2.  Counsel, in his statement, reviews the applicant's OER history, both active duty and Reserve.  He states that in the applicant's January 1996 request for reconsideration, he contended that he would not have been selected by the 1991 Reduction in Force (RIF) board because two of three OERs considered by that board had been successfully appealed after the RIF board and the third had an invalid senior rater profile.  The applicant also contended that the 1991 RIF board was not in compliance with existing guidance and federal statutes resulting in his erroneous selection for the RIF.  This request for reconsideration (based on the inaccuracy of the SR profile of his OER) was denied for a perceived failure to submit new material evidence.  Even after the Acting Director for the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) notified the applicant that his request for reconsideration had been incorrectly processed and denied ABCMR consideration by the staff of the ABCMR, and after the applicant submitted new evidence, the staff of the ABCMR again declined to adjudicate his second petition for reconsideration.  Thus, this third request for reconsideration is filed once again because the evidence the applicant provided in his 1996 and 1998 petitions were never adjudicated by the ABCMR.  Additionally, this petition also contains significant and substantial new evidence and new argument not previously submitted.  

3.  Counsel states that new argument is that the memorandum of instructions (MOI) to the fiscal year 1992 (FY 92) RIF board contained a constitutionally improper race and gender-based goal for retaining a percentage of minority and female officers which has recently been found to be unconstitutional.  In Christian v. United States, in the Order filed on 10 July 2001 by the Senior Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, the Court found that the plaintiff in that case was entitled to constructive service remedies identical to those remedies requested by the applicant in this case.  

4.  Counsel states that landmark decisions by the federal courts support the granting of the relief requested by the applicant in this case.  It has been universally held by the federal courts that the Secretaries of the military departments of the U. S armed forces have a duty as well as a power to afford the service member the proper relief by correcting military records (Sanders v.  U. S., Ct. Cl. 1979, 594 F.2d 804, 219 Ct.Cl.285).  Improperly constituted military selection boards constitute a legal error that the ABCMR is authorized to correct (Doyle v. U. S., Ct.Cl 1979, 599 F.2d 984, 220 Ct.Cl.285).  Military correction boards have an abiding moral sanction to determine the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps to grant thorough and fitting relief (Yee v. U. S. Ct. Cl., 1975, 512 F.2d. 1383, 206 Ct.Cl.388).  For these reasons and others, the relief requested by the applicant should be granted due to the unconstitutionality of the MOI given to the FY 92 RIF board.

5.  Counsel also states that the RIF action was not in compliance with existing guidance and federal statues concerning such actions and resulted in the erroneous selection of the applicant for RIF and involuntary separation from active duty.  The requirement that those officers in the designated "date of rank" of consideration have "less than" 15 years of "active federal service" as of         30 September 1992 was arbitrary, ill-considered, and not in compliance with Title 10, U. S. Code, section 638a and not in compliance with the Selection Board instructions of 9 March 1992.  The requirement for a RIF is not contested.  However, the RIF zone of selection deviated from the normal zone of consideration procedures to conduct the FY 92 major RIF and resulted in the exclusion from consideration of majors who had more than 15 years of service as of 30 September 1992 and eliminated a number of year group 1978 and year group 1979 officers from the RIF zone of consideration.  Because individuals with the same dates of rank but with more than 15 years of service were excluded from the RIF zone, some officers who could reasonably have expected to be considered for the RIF were not considered.  Majors with more than 15 years of service who would logically have a less competitive career were excluded from RIF consideration.  By failing to consider all officers eligible by promotion-date parameters, the normal procedure in officer boards, the 1992 RIF board failed in its charge to ensure that the best officers were retained.

6.  The selection board MOI was internally self-contradictory as well.  Time in service was initially, in paragraph 3, made a factor in the selection board instructions by including the criteria that not only date of rank was a factor but also that these individuals must have less than 15 years of active federal service as of 30 September 1992.  However, paragraph 8c made the following "special charge:  "You must give full and fair consideration to each officer in the zone of consideration, without regard to length of service."  (emphasis in counsel's original.)  Thus, the selection board instructions on the one hand include time in service as an identifying criterion and on the other hand clearly specify that length of service is a factor which must not be considered.

7.   Counsel provides supporting evidence as listed on the attached Exhibit List.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AC94-09431 on 1 February 1995 in which the applicant requested relief due to two OERs being successfully appealed after his separation.  Several subsequent requests for reconsideration were administratively closed.

2.  The applicant was appointed a Regular Army commissioned officer in the rank of second lieutenant in the Infantry on 7 June 1978 upon graduation from the     U. S. Military Academy.

3.  The applicant's OERs all contain mostly highly commendable comments.  None of them contain any type of derogatory comment.  His OER and Academic Evaluation Report (AER) history, with sample comments, follows:  

AER for Infantry Officer Basic for the rating period 7 June 1978 through  18 January 1979, achieved course standards.

OER, version 67-7, as a second lieutenant, for the rating period              19 January 1979 through 23 September 1979, score of 198 (out of a maximum of 200).

AER for Armor Officer Basic, nonresident course, duration of course       13 November 1979 through 6 August 1980, achieved course standards.

OERs, version 67-8, as a first lieutenant, (* indicates applicant’s senior rater (SR) potential block rating):

OER Period Ending		SR Block Rating 

23 September 1980		0/*4/2/1/0/0/0/0/0

17 June 1981		0/*3/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "… is an outstanding young officer who is commanding an infantry company outstandingly early in his career…His potential is limitless at this point in his career."

OERs, version 67-8, as a captain, (* indicates SR potential block rating:

OER Period Ending		SR Block Rating 

10 June 1982		13/*25/24/3/1/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "… has been outstanding in command…Accelerate all promotions.  He has unlimited potential."
AER for (partially illegible) Officer Preventive Maintenance Course, nonresident course, duration of course 26 September 1980 through 26 May 1982, achieved course standards.

AER for the Armor Officer Advanced Course, for the rating period 25 June 1982 through 17 February 1983, exceeded course standards.

AER for (partially illegible) Officer Advanced Course, nonresident course, duration of course 16 April through 26 December 1983, achieved course standards.

17 February 1984		*4/17/14/4/0/1/0/0/0
The applicant's principal duty title was aide-de-camp to the deputy commanding general, who acted as both rater and SR.  Performance comments included,      "… has performed assigned duties in a superb manner.  He has done extremely well in managing itineraries and available time.  Works with minimum guidance – can count on him to get a job done."  Potential comments include, "This officer has the potential to rise rapidly to Colonel and to be a General Officer…Strong potential for Infantry Command…Promote to Major in secondary zone."

15 June 1984	*5/17/15/4/0/1/0/0/0
The applicant had the same principal duty and rater/SR as the previous OER.  Performance comments included, "… has continued to accomplish all performance objectives to standard.  He has done a remarkable job in managing time and itineraries during the reorganization…"  Potential comments were almost identical to those in the previous OER.

15 June 1985	9/0/*1/0/0/0/2/0/0
Rater performance comments included, "… is a truly outstanding officer who is capable of accomplishing any assigned task."  Rater potential comments include, "… has unlimited potential…"  Senior rater comments included, "… has done an outstanding job in the activation of this newly-formed Ranger Battalion…He did an excellent job in the planning…He is a superb action officer…He has excellent potential for Battalion Command…"

23 May 1986			2/*1/1/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "…is off to an impressive start as the commander of a brigade HHC in a newly activated light infantry brigade."  

(On 9 September 1992, after the RIF board had considered this OER, the applicant appealed it, requesting the SR potential evaluation be changed from    a 2-block to a 1-block rating.  The SR supported amending this OER, and on       5 November 1992 the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) deleted the SR profile of this OER.)

1 May 1987			8/*5/4/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "…continued a solid performance as the commander of a brigade HHC during its train-up to short notice deployment readiness…has demonstrated outstanding potential for increased command and staff responsibility.  Select for early promotion…"

(On 9 September 1992, after the RIF board had considered this OER, the applicant appealed it, requesting the SR potential evaluation be changed from    a 2-block to a 1-block rating.  The SR informed the OSRB that he felt comfortable with this evaluation, and on 5 November 1992 the OSRB denied his request to amend this OER.  On 13 June 1993, the applicant applied to the ABCMR for the same relief.  The ABCMR denied his request on 1 February 1995.)

1 May 1988			12/*49/5/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "Now completing his first year in ROTC, (applicant) is off to a fine start.  A merited selectee for promotion to Major..."

1 May 1989			*30/72/5/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "…He established high standards for cadre and cadets, created a dynamic training and learning environment.  Superb individual role model…an outstanding officer with the potential to rise to high levels of responsibility…Outstanding Battalion Command potential."

The applicant was promoted to major with a date of rank of 1 April 1990.  OERs, version 67-8, as a major, are as follows.  

OER Period Ending		SR Block Rating 

1 May 1990			*4/1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "…has been a consistently outstanding performer…has unlimited potential…definitely a leading contender for battalion command."

8 September 1990		*5/2/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "…has provided outstanding leadership to the ROTC program…He is one of the few officers I have observed to possess unlimited potential and his future assignments should reflect this."

AER for Command and General Staff Officer Course, nonresident course, duration of course 17 October 1989 through 14 August 1990, exceeded course standards.

AER for Winter Warfare Course, for the rating period 6 through– 19 March 1988, exceeded course standards.

20 March 1991			3/*6/0/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR rater comments were, "…performed extremely well at a very difficult and challenging job.  He kept PSYOP forces well-supported throughout his tenure.  Promote this officer to LTC and select for a resident Command and Staff College."

3 January 1992			16/*31/12/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "…has done an outstanding job as Executive Officer of the Psychological Operations Dissemination Battalion…He is highly adaptable and will do well in the most challenging assignments.  Recommend for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel and selection for battalion command."

19 June 1992			28/43/*22/0/0/0/0/0/0
SR comments included, "…has been a superb Executive Officer for the largest and most complex battalion in the 4th Group…has great potential for further service in positions of higher responsibility.  Recommend this officer for promotion, professional education, and command ahead of his contemporaries…"

4.  By MOI dated 9 March 1992, a Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) RIF board was appointed under the provisions of Title 10, U. S. Code, sections 611(b) and 681, to consider Regular Army (RA) and Other Than Regular Army (OTRA) majors from the Army competitive category for involuntary separation from active duty.  The board would consider all RA and OTRA majors with dates of rank between 2 July 1989 and 1 March 1991, inclusive, who had served at least one year of active duty in their current grade as of 1 March 1991, had less than 15 years of active federal service as of 30 September 1992, whose names were not on a list of officers recommended for promotion, who were not eligible to be retired under any provisions of law, who were not within 2 years of becoming so eligible, and who did not have approved separations in fiscal year 1991.  

5.  The MOI stated that the board should initially select the optimum number (set at 375) of officers for involuntary separation.  A minimum number of 312 was set. A formula was set to determine how many of those selected would be RA officers.  The MOI charged the board to give full and fair consideration to each officer in the zone of consideration, without regard to length of service.

6.  The MOI instructed the board to make its recommendations to involuntarily separate an officer based on the overall quality of the file rather than any single facet.  It informed the board that the OER was the basic and most important document in an officer's record.  It instructed the board that elements of the SR's evaluation must be considered as one entity and not to focus unduly on either the potential box check or its relationship to the SR's profile as it could produce a distorted picture of the officer.  It instructed the board that the relative weight given to the rated officer's potential rating, as indicated by his or her ranking in relation to the SR's center of mass, was dependent on both the SR's profile and narrative evaluation of the rated officer's potential.  It instructed the board that the narrative lent meaning and interpretation to other elements of the SR's evaluation.  

7.  The MOI instructed the board that the goal for the board was to achieve a percent of minority and female officers recommended for involuntary separation not greater than the rate for all officers in the zone of consideration.

8.  By memorandum dated 29 May 1992, the applicant was notified that he was selected for involuntary separation from active duty by the FY 92 major RIF board and he was required to separate by 29 September 1992.  He acknowledged the notification and indicated he desired an appointment in the   U. S. Army Reserve (USAR).  He was discharged on 29 September 1992 in the rank of major after completing 14 years, 3 months, and 23 days of creditable active service.  He was assigned to the USAR.  His OERs from his USAR service are also highly commendable.  Two available USAR OERs under version 67-9 show his SR rated him as above center of mass.

9.  In September 1992, the applicant appealed two OERs (for the periods ending 23 May 1986 and 1 May 1987).  The applicant contends in this application to ABCMR, through counsel, that two OERs were successfully appealed; however, the available evidence of record shows only the 23 May 1986 OER was successfully appealed as noted above.  The OSRB no longer has files going back to the 1980s and the applicant does not provide evidence to show a second OER was successfully appealed.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) defines "zone of consideration" as commissioned officers on the active duty list of the same grade and competitive category whose dates of rank fall within a promotion eligibility category.

11.  Army Regulation 310-25 (Dictionary of United States Army Terms) defines "competitive category" as a group of commissioned officers on the active duty list who compete among themselves for promotion.

12.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 638a (Modification to rules for continuation on active duty; enhanced authority for selective early retirement and early discharges), subsection (b)(2), states that the Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a military department, during the 9-year period beginning on 1 October 1990, to convene selection boards under section 611(b) of this title to consider for discharge regular officers on the active duty list in a grade below 0-5 who have served at least one year of active duty in the grade currently held; whose names are not on a list of officers recommended for promotion; and who are not eligible to be retired under any provision of law (except the temporary early retirement authority) and are not within two years of becoming so eligible.  

13.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 638a, subsection(d)(1) states that, in the case of an action under subsection (b)(2), the Secretary of the military department concerned may submit to a selection board convened pursuant to that subsection (A) the names of all eligible officers described in that subsection in a particular grade and competitive category; or (B) the names of all eligible officers described in that subsection in a particular grade and competitive category who are also in particular year groups or specialties, or both, within that competitive category.  

14.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 611(b) states that, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the military department concerned, whenever the needs of the service require, may convene selection boards to recommend officers for continuation on active duty.

15.  On 5 June 2000, the U. S. Court of Federal Claims established, in Christian v. United States (a case concerning an officer selected by a Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) for early retirement), that the Equal Opportunity instructions used by the SERB were unconstitutional.  On 8 February 2001, that Court ruled that the results of that board are void.  As a result of this decision, section 503 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002 enacted Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1558 and amended Title 10, U. S. Code, section 628 to require that members challenging unfavorable treatment by a selection board to apply to their Service Secretary for consideration by a special board or a special selection board.  

16.  The Secretary of the Army has directed, and the Department of Defense has approved, several provisions with respect to the indicated selection boards.  Until 

the applicable regulations can be revised to contain provisions for special boards to reconsider persons selected for involuntary early retirement, release from active duty, and other purposes, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G-1, Special Review Board is designated as a special board for individuals in these categories.

17.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1558 states that the Secretary of a military department may correct a person's military records in accordance with a recommendation by a special board.  Section 1558(c) states that the Secretary of the military department concerned shall ensure that an involuntarily board-separated person receives relief…if the person…becomes entitled to retention on or restoration to active duty or to active status in a reserve component.  Section 1558(d) states that if a special board makes a recommendation not to correct the military records of a person regarding action taken in the case of that person on the basis of a previous report of a selection board, the action or previously taken on that report shall be considered as final as of the date of the action taken on that report.

18.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1558(e)(2) states that the Secretary may prescribe in the regulations under section 1558(e)(1) the circumstances under which consideration by a special board may be provided for under this section, including the following:  (A) the circumstances under which consideration of a person's case by a special board is contingent upon application by or for that person; and (B) any time limits applicable to the filing of the application for such consideration.

19.  Military Personnel (MILPER) message 03-170 outlines the criteria set by the Secretary of the Army under which consideration by a special board may occur.  These criteria include the time limits applicable to the filing of an application.  In accordance with paragraph 5 of this message, applications for special boards received within one year of the date of the message "may be based on original board results that were released within 6 years of the application."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Counsel's contention that two of the applicant's OERs were successfully appealed is noted but the available evidence shows that only one OER (for the period ending 23 May 1986) was successfully appealed.

2.  The applicant requested that his 2-block rating on the OER for the period ending 23 May1986 (in a SR profile of 2/*1/1/0/0/0/0/0/0) be changed to a 1-block 

rating.  The applicant's SR provided support for this request, and based on that support the OSRB deleted the SR profile.

3.  However, even if the applicant's request had been granted in the fashion he requested, the SR profile on that OER would only have given him a center of mass rating (*3/0/1/0/0/0/0/0/0).  Combined with the SR's center of mass narrative comments ("…is off to an impressive start as the commander of a brigade HHC…"), there is insufficient compelling evidence that would lead the ABCMR to believe that the change to this 23 May 1986 OER alone would have resulted in the applicant being selected for retention by the RIF board.

4.  There is no evidence available and the applicant provides none to show that a third, unidentified OER had an invalid SR profile or that he appealed that OER.

5.  The applicant's contentions that the RIF board contained a constitutionally improper race and gender-based goal is not disputed.  The Courts have so ruled.
As a result of the Court's decision, section 503 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002 enacted Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1558 and amended Title 10, U. S. Code, section 628 to require that members challenging unfavorable treatment by a selection board to apply to their Service Secretary for consideration by a special board or a special selection board.  

6.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1558 also allowed the Secretary concerned to prescribe in the regulations the circumstances under which consideration by a special board may be provided for under this section, including any time limits applicable to the filing of the application for such consideration.

7.  MILPER message 03-170 states that applications for special boards received within one year of the date of the message may be based on original board results that were released within 6 years of the application.  The applicant's RIF board was outside that 6-year window.

8.  The applicant's successfully appealed OER has already been discussed.  A review of the applicant's other RA OERs reveal that, although for the most part they contained highly commendable comments, there was sometimes a conflict between the comments and the SR's potential block rating.

9.  The applicant received two OERs (for the ending periods 17 February 1984 and 15 June 1984) for which the SR also served as the rater.  The applicant was given a clear above center of mass SR block rating on both these OERs.  The narrative comments on the OER for the ending period 17 February 1984 fit the 

above center of mass rating ("…has performed assigned duties in a superb manner… extremely well in managing itineraries and available time… the potential to rise rapidly to Colonel and to be a General Officer…Strong potential for Infantry Command…Promote to Major in secondary zone.")

10.  However, while the potential narrative comments in the OER for the ending period 15 June 1984 were almost identical to those of the previous OER, the performance comments did not match an above center of mass rating.  He now accomplished all performance objectives to standard instead of in a superb manner.  He now did a remarkable job in managing time and itineraries instead of extremely well.

11.  The applicant's OER for the period ending 15 June 1985 had a clearly conflicting message.  SR comments indicated he did an outstanding job and had excellent potential for battalion command, yet he was clearly rated as below center of mass (9/0/*1/0/0/0/2/0/0).

12.  Although the SR's 1-block rating seemed to match his comments ("…has  unlimited potential…definitely a leading contender for battalion command"), the applicant's OER for the period ending 1 May 1990 also sent a conflicting message.  The 1-block rating placed the applicant as a center of mass officer (*4/1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0).

13.  The applicant's OER for the period ending 8 September 1990 sent a similar conflicting message.  The SR's comments ("…He is one of the few officers I have observed to possess unlimited potential and his future assignments should reflect this") did not match his center of mass rating (*5/2/0/0/0/0/0/0/0) even though it was a 1-block rating.

14.  The applicant's OER for the period ending 19 June 1992 had another, similar conflicting message.  He was rated as center of mass/below center of mass (28/43/*22/0/0/0/0/0/0) yet his SR recommended him for promotion, professional education, and command ahead of his contemporaries.

15.  It is acknowledged that the OER system under version 67-8 was flawed in that it quickly led to inflated ratings.  That flaw was recognized and the OER was later reformed.  Unfortunately, it was reformed too late for the applicant.  It was also reformed too late for hundreds of other officers considered by the same RIF board.  The applicant was not alone in being caught in the OER inflationary cycle.  However, it is also recognized that the members of the RIF board were senior officers who were fully aware of this flaw in the 67-8 OER system.  They 

were experienced enough to "read between the lines" of an OER and to consider other evidence that might give a further clue to an officer's performance and potential.

16.  Nevertheless, retention in the RA during the drawdown period was keenly competitive.  The RIF board considered the records of many good officers.  Board members had to decide which good officers to retain.  Those officers included ones whose records and OERs left no ambiguity as to how the SR rater felt about them.  Those officers also included ones where the board members had to decide if the SR meant his highly commendable narrative comments or his center of mass block rating (or vice versa) to reflect how he felt about that officer. The applicant's OER history appears to place him in the second category of good officers.  It appears the RIF board made the decision that his records were not sufficiently clear to warrant retention.

17.  Based on a review of the applicant's OERs, there is no compelling evidence that would warrant overcoming the regulatory 6-year limitation imposed on applications for consideration by a special board.

18.  It does not appear to the Board that the requirement that those officers in the designated date of rank of consideration have less than 15 years of active federal service as of 30 September 1992 was arbitrary, ill-considered, or not in compliance with Title 10, U. S. Code, section 638a.  

19.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 611(b) states that, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the military department concerned may convene selection boards to recommend officers for continuation on active duty.  Zones of consideration and competitive categories are not defined in the statute.

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-29 defines "zone of consideration" as commissioned officers on the active duty list of the same grade and competitive category whose dates of rank fall within a promotion eligibility category.  Army Regulation 310-25 defines "competitive category" as a group of commissioned officers on the active duty list who compete among themselves for promotion.

21.  The officers considered by the FY 92 RIF board constituted a group of commissioned officers on the active duty list who competed among themselves (for selective continuation instead of promotion).  No officer was left out of that particular competitive category.  It may have deviated from the normal zone of consideration procedures but it was not arbitrary or prejudicial to any officer in that category.  

22.  The ABCMR does not find an internal self-contradiction in the FY 92 RIF MOI.  The eligibility criteria for consideration by the RIF board was all RA and OTRA majors with dates of rank between 2 July 1989 and 1 March 1991 who had less than 15 years of active federal service as of 30 September 1992.   Within this range would be officers who could have had 14 years, 11 months, and 29 days of service and officers who could have had several years less.  The special charge to give full and fair consideration to each officer in the zone of consideration without regard to length of service only meant the board should not give an officer with the greater length of service (i.e., the greater investment in the Army) undue consideration for retention, or vice versa.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jl____  __le___     __rjo___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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

		__JoAnn Langston______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003089544	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20040212	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	110.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.