RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 22 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000755 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. Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: M Chairperson M Member M Member 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: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that he be issued a discharge order authorizing him separation pay. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he and his family were disgraced, embarrassed, and put through a lot of suffering as a result of his involuntary release from the Army which was caused by charges of mismanagement of personal affairs and acts of personal misconduct. Specifically, he presents the following arguments: a. he was notified in the elimination memorandum that if he elected to submit his resignation or request discharge in lieu of elimination, he could be eligible for separation pay and could consult with his legal advisor and his finance and accounting office concerning entitlement to separation pay; b. he acknowledged notification of initiation of elimination action against him and requested resignation from the Army as well as a hearing by a board of officers to show cause for retention in the Army; however, he states, the convening authority's verbal orders ensured the board of officers would never convene, thus violating his rights and denying him the opportunity to continue his service in the Army; and c. the elimination action and proceedings were not suspended; they continued without regard to the fact that when he was interrogated by the St. Louis police detectives, he was intoxicated and coerced to incriminate himself for the sake of his family. 3. The applicant provides the following additional documentary evidence in support of his application: a. DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 3 December 1991 (Voided); b. DD Form 214, dated 3 December 1991 (Reissued on 10 November 2005); c. DD Form 215 (Correction to the DD Form 214), dated 15 February 1995; d. Letter, dated 19 October 2007, Army Human Resources Command (HRC)-St. Louis, Missouri, disapproval of entitlements to severance pay; e. Letter, dated 10 November 2005, Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), upgrade discharge to “General, Under Honorable Conditions”; f. Internet/computer printout, dated 14 December 2007, U.S. Code Collection, Cornell University Law School; and g. Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) Letter, dated 11 March 2008, disapproval of separation pay. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's record shows he initially enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years on 10 March 1961 and held military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman). He was honorably separated and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group on 9 March 1964. After a break in service, he enlisted in the Puerto Rico Army National Guard (PRARNG) on 8 August 1971 as an infantryman and attained the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5. 2. The applicant's record further shows that he was commissioned through Officer Candidate School (OCS) as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve as an infantry officer. He subsequently completed various military courses, entered active duty on various dates, assumed several command and staff positions, and was promoted to the rank/grade of captain (CPT)/O-3 on 2 March 1982 and major (MAJ)/O-4 on 11 April 1989. His last assignment prior to separation was at the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center (now known as HRC), St. Louis, Missouri, as a personnel management officer. 3. On 14 May 1990, the applicant’s immediate commander reported that the applicant was arrested for sexual assault. He subsequently became a subject of investigation by the US Army Criminal Investigation [Division] Command (USACIDC) concerning carnal knowledge, sodomy, and indecent acts with a child under the age of 16. 4. On 16 May 1990, the St. Louis Resident Agency, Granite City, Illinois, Field Investigative Activity, USACIDC, conducted an investigation into the applicant's activities during the period 1983 through November 1989 in Puerto Rico and Fort Benning, Georgia, prior to moving to St. Louis, Missouri. The investigation disclosed that the applicant had sexual intercourse and participated in sexual acts with his daughter. 5. On 12 June 1991, the Commanding General (CG), HRC-St,. Louis, Missouri, initiated elimination action against the applicant and notified him that he was required to show cause for retention on active duty under the provisions of paragraph 5-11 of Army Regulation 635-100 (Officer Personnel) because of misconduct and moral dereliction. This action was based on the mismanagement of personal affairs to the discredit of the service; intentional omission or misstatement of facts in official statements or records; misrepresentation; acts of personal misconduct; and conduct unbecoming of an officer. The initiation of elimination memorandum also notified the applicant that he was entitled to: a. request resignation in lieu of elimination and that if he elects this option, he may be eligible to receive separation pay, and could consult with his legal advisor and his finance and accounting office concerning possible entitlement to separation pay; or b. request retirement in lieu of elimination, if otherwise qualified; or c. submit a rebuttal and/or declination statement and request appearance before a board of officers. 6. On 14 June 1991, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the initiation of elimination memorandum and on 12 July 1991, he submitted a statement to the CG, HRC-St. Louis, Missouri requesting appearance before a board of inquiry. 7. On 24 July 1991, by memorandum, the CG, HRC-St. Louis, notified the applicant of his tentative appearance before a board of officers and that his appearance represented an opportunity to appear personally on his own behalf prior to final action by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs). The applicant acknowledged receipt of this memorandum on 29 July 1991. 8. On 12 August 1991, a board of officers was appointed in accordance with Army Regulation 635-100 to determine whether the applicant should be discharged due to misconduct. The appointment memorandum stated that the board of officers would convene at the call of the president and that the scope of its findings would consist of those facts relevant to the proposed administrative separation and character of discharge. 9. On 16 August 1991, by memorandum, the applicant voluntarily requested resignation in lieu of elimination proceedings in accordance with Army Regulation 635-120 (Personnel Separations; Officer Resignations and Discharges). In his memorandum, the applicant stated that: a. he was advised prior to submitting this resignation that he could, at his option, consult with and be represented by a legally qualified military or civilian counsel; b. he elected to waive his right to either appear before a board of officers with or without counsel or submit matters in explanation, rebuttal, or defense concerning the allegations against him; c. if his resignation was accepted, he would be entitled to separation pay if otherwise eligible, and that he would be furnished an honorable, general, or other than honorable conditions discharge; d. if his resignation was accepted under other than honorable conditions, he would not be entitled to compensation for unused accrued leave and that he might be barred from all rights, based on the period of service from which he was separated, under any laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and e. he acknowledged his understanding that if he participated in any certain advanced education programs, he would be required to reimburse the U.S. Government in accordance with applicable laws and regulation. 10. On 22 August 1991, by memorandum, addressed through the CG, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to the CG, Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) (now known as HRC), Alexandria, Virginia, the CG, HRC-St. Louis, Missouri, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of further elimination proceedings. 11. On an unknown date in 1991, by memorandum, the CG, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of further elimination proceedings with an other than honorable conditions discharge. The CG further remarked that he considered the serious offenses of sexual misconduct, making false statements, and wearing unauthorized awards. He further stated that he was concerned with the lack of integrity and deception involved and the web of falsehoods in connection with these statements and awards. 12. On 17 September 1991, by two memoranda addressed through the CG, HRC-St. Louis, Missouri, to the CG, HRC-Alexandria, Virginia, the applicant: a. requested withdrawal of his request for resignation in lieu of elimination proceedings, dated 16 August 1991. He remarked that his previous submission was not proper or correct, and that the submitted resignation had serious implications in future proceedings which would be detrimental to the reputation and well-being of his family. He further stated he was not satisfied with his counsel and requested assignment of a new counsel and appearance before a board of inquiry in lieu of resignation; and b. made a new request for resignation in lieu of elimination proceedings. In this new request, he remarked that he voluntarily tendered his resignation from the Army under the provisions of chapter 4 of Army Regulation 635-120, stating that the allegations brought against him were not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that he did not accept them because the alleged acts never occurred. As a result, for the sake of his reputation, well-being of his family, and the good of the service, he tendered his resignation. 13. On 3 October 1991, by memorandum addressed through the CG, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to the CG, HRC-Alexandria, Virginia, the CG, HRC-St. Louis, Missouri, recommended the applicant’s 17 September 1991 request to withdraw his 16 August 1991 resignation in lieu of elimination and to, instead, substitute a new request for resignation in lieu of elimination be disapproved and returned without action. The CG further remarked that the new resignation memorandum contained language that undermined the intent behind the resignation in lieu of elimination and that there was no rational basis or evidence to qualify or withdraw the applicant's original request for resignation. The original request was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, with advice of counsel, and accepting the new request would, in effect, give the applicant a resignation for the convenience of the government rather than in lieu of elimination. 14. On 30 October 1991, by memorandum, addressed to the CG, HRC-Alexandria, Virginia, the CG, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, concurred with the HRC-St. Louis, CG’s comments. He further remarked that the applicant’s amendment effectively negated the intent of a regulation that had a clear intent for the applicant to waive all rights to adjudicate the matters leading to the convening of the board of inquiry in return for the acceptance of the resignation. In effect, the applicant was attempting to submit an unqualified resignation under chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-120, in the guise of a request format modified from that required by chapter 4 of Army Regulation 635-120. He further strongly recommended the applicant’s request to withdraw his resignation request, dated 16 August 1991, be disapproved, and the resignation request, dated 17 September 1991, be returned without action. 15. On 1 November 1991, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Department of the Army Review Boards and Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance and Complaints Review) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board that the resignation in lieu of elimination tendered by the applicant on 16 August 1991 be accepted, and directed he be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 16. On 7 November 1991, by electronic message, addressed to the CG, HRC-St. Louis, Missouri, the CG, HRC-Alexandria, Virginia, announced that by order of the Secretary of the Army, the applicant’s request for resignation in lieu of elimination was approved with an under other than honorable conditions discharge; by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction; and with a Separation Code “BNC.” 17. On 14 November 1991, the Chief, Personnel Management Branch, HRC-Alexandria, Virginia, forwarded the applicant’s request to withdraw his request for resignation in lieu of elimination, to the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Department of the Army Review Boards and Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance and Complaints Review) for action. 18. On 21 November 1991, HRC-St. Louis, Missouri, published Orders 138-1, reassigning the applicant to the U.S. Army Transition Center, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, for separation outprocessing effective 3 December 1991. 19. On 27 November 1991, HRC-St. Louis, Missouri, amended Orders 138-1 to show that the applicant was not entitled to separation pay in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1174, and that he was not entitled to benefits under the Transition Assistance Management Program. 20. On 3 December 1991, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged with an under other than honorable conditions character of service in accordance with chapter 4 of Army Regulation 635-100, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. The form also shows the applicant completed 11 years, 1 month, and 10 days of active military service and 15 years, 2 months, and 7 days of inactive service. Item 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 shows the entry “BNC.” 21. On 16 December 1991, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Department of the Army Review Boards and Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance and Complaints Review) denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration of resignation in lieu of elimination, dated 17 September 1991. 22. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade on two occasions. a. On 27 October 1994, the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s case and directed that Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected to show “Unacceptable Conduct” instead of “Misconduct, Moral or Professional Dereliction.” Accordingly, a DD Form 215 was issued on 15 February 1995 adjusting the applicant’s narrative reason for separation. b. On 12 September 2005, the ADRB approved the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge as a matter of equity. Accordingly, on 10 November 2005, he was issued a new DD Form 214 changing his character of service from "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions" to "General, Under Honorable Conditions"; the Separation Authority from "Army Regulation 635-120, Chapter 4" to " Army Regulation 635-120, Chapter 3"; the Narrative Reason for Separation from "Unacceptable Conduct" to "Miscellaneous Reasons"; and the SPD code from "BNC" to " FND." 23. On 19 October 2007, by memorandum responding to the applicant's request, dated 10 October 2007, regarding entitlement to severance pay [sic], the Deputy Chief of Staff-Resource Management, HRC-St. Louis, Missouri, notified the applicant that the ADRB’s decision to adjust his character of service and reason and authority for discharge, did not address or determine if any monetary benefits were entitled by virtue of the change in discharge and that the separation order must specify entitlements to severance pay, if warranted. The Deputy Chief of Staff –Resource Management further directed the applicant to apply to DFAS-Denver, Colorado, for any possible monetary benefits. 24. On 11 March 2008, by letter responding to the applicant’s letter, dated 16 December 2007, a Claims Examiner, Directorate of Debt and Claims Management, DFAS-Denver, Colorado, notified the applicant that entitlement to separation pay is not based on the type of discharge he received, but the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code he received upon discharge. His SPD code, shown in Item 26 (Separation Code) of the DD Form 214 is “FND” which does not entitle him to separation pay. 25. Army Regulation 635-100, Chapter 5 prescribed the means and procedures to eliminate officers from the Army for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction. Paragraph 5-11 of Army Regulation 635-100 stated the reasons which authorized elimination of an officer due to misconduct, moral or professional dereliction or in the interest of national security. Those reasons included intentional omission or misstatement of fact in official statements or records, for the purpose of misrepresentation; acts of personal misconduct (including, but not limited to, acts committed while in a drunken or drug intoxicated state); and conduct unbecoming an officer. 26. Army Regulation 635-120 (Officer Resignations and Discharges) prescribes procedures whereby an officer on active duty may tender his or her resignation or be discharged. Chapter 4 states that an officer who has been recommended for elimination from the service by a General Court-Martial convening authority or who has been selected by a Department of the Army Selection Board for elimination may tender a resignation in lieu of elimination action. If resignation is accepted under this chapter, an officer is not entitled to separation pay unless he or she was notified in writing that he or she must show cause for retention and subsequently makes the request. A tender of resignation or request for discharge will automatically suspend elimination action. The officer concerned will remain within his or her current major command until final determination on the tender of resignation is made by Headquarters, Department of the Army. 27. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPD codes to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation in effect at the time showed that the SPD code "BNC" specified the narrative reason for separation as voluntary release or transfer, resignation-in lieu of elimination proceedings, for "Misconduct - Moral or Professional Dereliction" and the SPD code "FND" specified the narrative reason for separation as voluntary release or transfer, resignation-other, for "Miscellaneous Reasons." 28. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. Paragraph 2-11 contains guidance on ABCMR hearings and it states that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. 29. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1332.29, paragraph 3.1., Full Separation Pay (Nondisability), states that full payment of nondisability separation pay is authorized to members of the Regular and Reserve components involuntarily separated from active duty who meet the following conditions: a. the member is on active duty or full time National Guard duty and has completed at least 6 years, but fewer than 20 years of active service. For reserve members not on the active duty list when separated, 6 years of continuous active duty or full time National Guard must have preceded immediately before such separation. A period of active duty is continuous if any break in military service does not exceed 30 days; b. the service member's separation is characterized as honorable; and c. the service member is being involuntarily separated by the Military Service concerned through either the denial of reenlistment or the denial of continuation on active duty or full time National Guard duty, when the member is a Regular Army commissioned or warrant officer, other than a commissioned warrant officer, separated or transferred to the Retired Reserve under chapters 361, 363, 573, 861, or 863 of Title 10, U.S. Code, or a Reserve commissioned officer on the active duty list or a Reserve warrant officer who is separated for similar reasons under Service policies. 30. Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation is issued under the authority of DOD Instruction 7000.14, “’DOD Financial Management Policy and Procedures.” It governs financial management by establishing and enforcing requirements, principles, standards, systems, procedures, and practices necessary to comply with financial management statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the Department of Defense. Volume 7A governs military pay policy and procedures for active duty and Reserve pay. Paragraph 3502, Chapter 35 of Volume 7A of the DOD Financial Management Regulation states, in pertinent part, that effective 20 June 1991, full payment of nondisability separation pay has been authorized to Military Service members of the Regular and Reserve Components who have been involuntarily separated from active duty and have met each of the following four conditions: a. The member has met one of the following criteria for active military service: (1) the member is on active duty or full-time National Guard duty and has completed at least 6 years, but less than 20 years, active service. Reserve members not on the active duty list when separated must have 6 years of continuous active duty or full-time National Guard duty immediately preceding separation. A period of active duty is considered continuous if any break in active service does not exceed 30 days; (2) the member (other than a regular enlisted member) was on active duty or full-time National Guard duty on November 5, 1990 and on that date had 5 or more, but less than 6 years of active service. Reserve members not on the active duty list when separated must have 5 years of continuous active duty or full-time National Guard duty immediately preceding separation. A period of active duty is considered continuous if any break in active service does not exceed 30 days; (3) effective December 1, 1993, a member who is a Regular officer and is separated under chapter 36 of 10 U.S.C. must have completed at least 6 years, but less than 20 years, of active service; or (4) the member, who is a Regular officer and is separated under chapter 36 of 10 U.S.C. must have completed 5 or more years, but less than 6 years, of active service on November 30, 1993. b. The member’s separation must be characterized as “honorable” and none of the conditions apply that are listed in paragraph 350202, below. c. A member who is separated involuntarily through either the denial of reenlistment or the denial of continuation on active duty or full-time National Guard duty must meet one of the following four specific conditions: (1) the member must be fully qualified for retention but be denied reenlistment or continuation. This includes a Military Service member who is eligible for promotion as established by the Secretary of the Military Service concerned, but is denied reenlistment or continuation on active duty under established promotion or high year of tenure policies; (2) the member must be fully qualified for retention, but be involuntarily separated under a Reduction in Force by authority designated by the Secretary of the Military Service concerned; (3) the member, if a Regular officer, commissioned or warrant, must be separated under 10 U.S.C. 564, 1165, or 6383, or chapter 36; if a Reserve commissioned officer, other than a commissioned warrant officer, must be separated or transferred to the retired Reserve under 10 U.S.C., chapters 361, 363, 573, 861, or 863; or if a Reserve commissioned officer on the active duty list or a Reserve warrant officer must be separated for similar reasons under Military Service policies; or (4) the member must be denied reenlistment or continuation on active duty or full-time National Guard duty under subparagraphs 350201.A.3.a through c, above, and have accepted an earlier separation from active duty. d. The member must have entered into a written agreement with the Military Service concerned to serve in the Ready Reserve of a Reserve Component of the Armed Forces for a minimum period of 3 years following the separation from active duty: (1) A member who enters into this written agreement and who is qualified for service in the Ready Reserve will, upon separation from active duty, be enlisted or appointed, as appropriate, as a Reserve member by the Military Service concerned. If the person has a service obligation under of 10 U.S.C. 651, or any other law, that is not completed at the time of separation from active duty, the 3-year obligation begins on the day after the day on which the member completes the prior obligation. (2) A member who enters into this written agreement and who is not qualified for enlistment or appointment in the Ready Reserves need not be enlisted or appointed by the Military Service concerned to be considered to have met this condition of eligibility for separation pay. 31. Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1 (Separation Pay) consolidated the implementing instructions on separation pay previously released through the Department of defense Instructions 1332.29, and other guidance resulting from Public Law 101-510 "The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991." It outlines eligibility criteria for separation pay and provides separation pay formula. It states in pertinent part, that an officer who is separated for substandard performance or acts of misconduct or moral or professional dereliction is not eligible for separation pay (except when half separation pay is allowed. Half separation pay is authorized for Soldiers who are not fully qualified for retention and are involuntarily separated. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant is requesting, in effect, that he be issued a discharge order authorizing him separation pay. He bases this request, in part, on the ADRB's 12 September 2005 review of his discharge which resulted in a change of characterization from "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions" to "General, Under Honorable Conditions," change in his separation code from "BNC" to "FND," and change in the narrative reason for separation from "Misconduct, Moral or Professional Dereliction” to "Miscellaneous Reasons." 2. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with the commission of a serious offense and was notified of the initiation of elimination action. He acknowledged receipt of the notification and initially requested a hearing by a board of officers to show cause for retention in the Army. Accordingly, a board of inquiry was appointed and he was notified of appearance before this board. However, after consulting with legal counsel, he subsequently elected to voluntarily submit his resignation in lieu of elimination. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The regulation provides that a resignation in lieu of elimination, when approved at Headquarters Department of the Army, is normally accepted as being under other than honorable conditions. 3. The applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100 because of his misconduct, moral or professional dereliction that resulted from several acts of misconduct to include, mismanagement of personal affairs to the discredit of the service, intentional omission or misstatement of fact in official statements or records, misrepresentation, acts of personal misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of an officer. He voluntarily submitted a request to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 4 in lieu of further elimination proceedings. There is no evidence that he was coerced, influenced, or disadvantaged. 4. The elimination memorandum, dated 12 June 1991, stated that if he elected to submit his resignation or request discharge in lieu of elimination he could be eligible for separation pay. There is no indication in the language of the elimination memorandum that the applicant was automatically entitled to separation pay. The phrase "could be" is a conditional clause used to indicate the applicant's tentativeness or eligibility for a specific benefit if he met the conditions of that benefit. 5. The ADRB, as a matter of equity, changed the applicant's discharge to general, under honorable conditions and the narrative reason for separation changed to miscellaneous reasons. His SPD code of "FND" reveals that his separation was still a voluntary resignation. The ADRB could have changed the applicant's discharge to an administrative separation. Had the ADRB chosen to change the applicant's SPD code to one signifying an administrative separation by reason of involuntary separation, the applicant could have been entitled to certain financial benefits (if otherwise qualified), such as separation pay. However, this was not the case and the ADRB chose to issue him a "resignation" SPD code. 6. The applicant's discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-100, paragraph 5-11 and Army Regulation 635-120, chapter 4 for misconduct, moral dereliction are administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Therefore, there is no merit in the applicant's request for separation pay. 7. 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 this requirement. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __x___ __x___ __x___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. RML ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080000755 15 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 1901 SOUTH BELL STREET, 2ND FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22202-4508