IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005365 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of her records to show she was diagnosed with additional unfitting medical conditions and placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL). 2. The applicant states she was an outstanding Soldier, but her career came to an abrupt end when she experienced severe joint pain. She was diagnosed with lupus, depression, insomnia, asthma, and other illnesses for which she received treatment. Some of the medications she was prescribed caused memory loss, depression, confusion, and insomnia. a. During her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) she was taking medications that left her in an altered mental state, confused, oblivious, and incapable of making sound decisions. She states she does not recall a final face-to-face examination with the psychiatrist telling her the depression was resolved and there were no more concerns with her chronic adjustment disorder and being socially withdrawn. She also does not recall being medically cleared for insomnia, migraine headaches, asthma, hearing loss, back pain, and full range of motion for her right wrist (after the ganglion cyst was surgically removed). b. She now knows it was reported in her June 1997 [sic] Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings she denied depressed mood, insomnia, and social withdrawal. However, she does not remember such a denial, she is not a physician, and her statements should not have been used as competent statements by the PEB. She notes she was awarded a forty percent (%) rating, which she agreed to with her signature. c. She states that she does not remember signing the [December 2005] PEB proceedings awarding her a 20% rating. In fact, the first time she viewed these PEB proceedings was in early 2015 when she received a copy in the mail. She requests a review of her decision because of her altered mental state, memory loss, confusion, and impaired reasoning due to medications. d. She adds that the following illnesses, which occurred while she was serving on active duty are documented her medical records, have not yet been resolved and were not evaluated or rated by the MEB: * loss of memory due to medication * hearing loss * sleep walking * carpal tunnel * migraine * anxiety * paralysis of median nerve * right hip strain malunion of femur * asthma * chronic anemia * dizziness * fatigue and weakness * stress * fainting * chest pain * chronic headache * cramps in legs, feet, hands, and thighs * elbow pain * shortness of breath * RAD [reactive airway disease] * bleeding of hemorrhoids * numbness in hands and arms * surgery to remove ganglion cyst * left leg general overuse syndrome * allergies * adjustment disorder * tendonitis right shoulder * chest pain * cardiac palpitation 3. The applicant provides copies of: * two self-authored statements (summarized above) * 16 military medical records * two DA Forms 199 (PEB Proceedings) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1988. Upon completion of training she was awarded military occupational specialty 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist). Through a series of reenlistments she continued to serve on active duty. She attained the rank of staff sergeant/pay grade E-6 on 1 April 1995. 3. A DA Form 2166 (NCO [Noncommissioned Officer] Evaluation Report (NCOER)) for the period August 1999 through March 2000 shows the applicant performed duties as Noncommissioned Officer in Charge, Property Management Section, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity, Fort Benning, GA. The rater assessed her as excellent in competence and successful in physical fitness, leadership, training, and responsibility and accountability. The senior rater assessed her overall performance as "Successful" and her overall potential for promotion and/or service in positions of greater responsibility as "Superior." 4. A DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings) shows an MEB convened on 10 August 2000 at Martin Army Community Hospital, Fort Benning, GA. The MEB proceedings included, in pertinent part, a 5-page MEB Summary [examination on 2 June 2000]; 2-page MEB (Out-Patient Psychiatry) Addendum [examination on 20 July 2000]; Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination, dated 17 May 2000; SF 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 17 May 2000; DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 14 July 2000; and Commander's Evaluation, dated 5 May 2000. a. After consideration of the above, including clinical records and laboratory findings, the Board found that the applicant had the following medical conditions/ defects – * inflammatory polyarthritis * hypercholesterolemia * history of atypical chest pain with a negative work-up for asthma and negative work-up for cardiac etiology * history of internal hemorrhoids with rectal bleeding with a negative lower GI [gastrointestinal] work-up * history of chronic right lower quadrant pain secondary to adhesive pelvic disease * major depressive disorder, recurrent b. The MEB recommended the case be referred to a PEB for disposition. c. The findings and recommendations were approved on 11 August 2000. d. The applicant indicated her agreement with the MEB proceedings. 5. A DA Form 199 shows an informal PEB convened on 18 August 2000 at Fort Sam Houston, TX. a. It shows the following condition was determined to be unfitting: Veteran Administration Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Codes 5099 – 5002, inflammatory polyarthritis with associated depression. It also shows the applicant's condition was incurred in line of duty (LOD) and that her condition was not sufficiently stable for final adjudication. Recommended Disability: 40%. b. The remaining MEB diagnoses were found not unfitting, not rated. c. The PEB found the applicant physically unfit, recommended a combined rating of 40%, and that she be placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) with reexamination during October 2001. d. The PEB President signed the PEB proceedings. e. On 22 August 2000, the PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO) confirmed the applicant was fully briefed on the findings and recommendations of the PEB, and also on her legal rights pertaining thereto. f. The applicant concurred with the PEB proceedings, waived a formal hearing of her case, and placed her signature on the document. g. The PEB proceedings were approved on 22 August 2000. 6. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the applicant entered active duty on 7 April 1988 and was retired on 12 October 2000 under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 4-24b(2), based on disability, temporary. She had completed 12 years, 6 months, and 6 days of net active service this period. 7. An Outpatient TDRL Evaluation of the applicant was conducted at Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC), Fort Gordon, GA on 19 November 2002. The examining psychiatrist provided the following diagnosis: "Major depressive disorder, recurrent, as manifested by depressed mood, anhedonia, social withdrawal, feelings of worthlessness/guilt, diminished energy, decreased concentration/memory, difficulty sleeping with early morning awakening, possible mood congruent paranoid ideation. Impairment for military duty: Marked. Impairment for social and industrial adaptability: Definite. LOD:Yes." 8. A DA Form 199 shows an informal PEB convened on 25 March 2003 at Fort Sam Houston, TX. a. It shows the following condition was determined to be unfitting: "VASRD Codes 5099, 5002, and 9434, inflammatory polyarthritis with associated depression and definite social/industrial impairment." Based on a review of the TDRL examination, the PEB found the applicant's impairment was not sufficiently stabilized to permit final adjudication at the time. Retention on the TDRL for an additional period was considered appropriate in the applicant's case. b. The PEB found the applicant physically unfit and recommended retention on the TDRL with reexamination during May 2004. c. The PEB President signed the PEB proceedings. d. The PEB proceedings were approved on 26 March 2003. 9. An Outpatient TDRL Evaluation of the applicant was conducted at DDEAMC, Fort Gordon, GA on 13-16 June 2005. The examining psychiatrist provided the following diagnosis: "Major depressive disorder, recurrent, as manifested by a history of depressed mood, insomnia, diminished energy and concentration, and social withdrawal. Degree of impairment for military duty: Marked. Impairment for social and industrial adapt ability: Definite. LOD: Yes." The mental status examination shows, in pertinent part, "She reported her mood as 'OK'. Her affect was shallow but reactive. Her though [sic] processes were logical, coherent and goal directed. Her thought content was devoid of suicidal/homicidal ideation or intent. There was no current evidence of hallucinations or other psychotic processes. Her memory was grossly intact with spontaneous recollection of recent and remote events. Insight into her condition was fair. Her judgment was not impaired at the time of the interview." The psychiatrist noted the applicant had the capacity to understand and participate in PEB proceedings. The Chief, Outpatient Behavioral Health Services, DDEAMC, approved the Outpatient TDRL Evaluation on 5 July 2005. a. On 2 September 2005, the applicant submitted a letter to the PEB in which she disagreed with the psychiatrist's findings. She offered the following reasons: not being able to motivate herself to get out bed on a lot of days, fix food for the family or herself, or wash or clean on a daily basis; not remembering a lot of things; and forgetting that she said or did things. However, she also added she had improved because 16 months ago her husband resigned his job and was available to assist her with personal and household responsibilities. b. On 28 November 2005, the psychiatrist reviewed the applicant's statement. He noted she contradicted her presentation at the time of her outpatient examination. He concluded his initial findings were appropriate and do not require modification for the PEB. 10. A DA Form 199 shows an informal PEB convened on 13 December 2005 at Fort Sam Houston, TX. a. It shows the following condition was determined to be unfitting: "VASRD Codes 5099 – 5002, chronic inflammatory polyarthritis without clinical evidence of active synovitis, but with laboratory evidence of a chronic inflammatory process (ESR [Electron Spin Resonance] is 42, C-Reactive protein is 0.833 and SPEP consistent with chronic inflammatory process); has fatigue and complaints of elbow pain. Takes Advil only. Rated as one or two exacerbations in a well-established diagnosis. The depression has resolved, has been training to become a pharmacy tech and has graduated. Denied depressed mood, insomnia, social withdrawal. Has not seen a psychiatrist since August 2004 and does not use psychotropic medications. Depression is considered to be in remission and not requiring treatment. (TDRL psychiatric evaluation, TDRL rheumatology evaluation, email from Dr. E--- to Dr. D--- regarding [applicant's] rebuttal, rheumatology evaluation of 26 November 2005 after laboratory studies completed.) Recommended Disability of 20%." b. Based on review of the TDRL examination, the PEB found the applicant remains unfit to reasonably perform the duties required by previous grade and military specialty. The applicant's condition was considered sufficiently stable for final adjudication. c. The PEB recommended a combined rating of 20% and that the applicant's disposition be separated with severance pay, if otherwise qualified. d. The PEB President signed the PEB proceedings. e. On 15 December 2005, the applicant concurred with the PEB proceedings, waived a formal hearing of her case, and placed her signature on the document. f. The PEB proceedings were approved on 30 December 2005. 11. In support of her application the applicant provides 16 military medical records spanning the period 30 May 1990 to 17 May 2000 that show she was examined/received treatment for, in pertinent part, the following medical conditions: * 30 May 1990 – hearing loss; H1 profile issued * 13 November 1993 – dizziness when bending over; prescribed medication * 14 March 1994 – morning fatigue and history of anemia, ganglion cyst (right wrist) [treatment not indicated on medical record provided] * 14 June 1994 – rectal bleeding due to irritation of internal hemorrhoids; prescribed medication (Metamucil), fiber diet, and further evaluation * 13 September 1994 – recurrence of ganglion cyst; plan for surgical exam * 14 August 1995 – chronic pelvic pain; trial medication prescribed * post 18 October 1996 – stress, loss of sleep, loss of appetite; well-oriented, probably related to work, referred to sleep clinic * 19 December 1996 – chronic back ache; medication prescribed * 18 April 1997 – history of RAD since arriving in Italy; T3 profile issued * 10 July 1998 – rectal bleeding, fatigue; internal hemorrhoid; prescribed fiber diet and hydration, and further evaluation * 4 December 1998 – shortness of breath, tightening of chest; [treatment not indicated on medical record provided] * 16 December 1998 – asthma; follow-up within 1 month * 25 January 1999 – right elbow pain, numbness in arm; elbow extension splint, referred to occupational therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome * 11 June 1999 – left hand joint pain, headache, decreased memory; [treatment not indicated on medical record provided] * October 1999 – swelling and pain in both hands; Methotrexate and Vioxx, follow-up in 2 weeks * 17 May 2000 – page 2 of an SF 93 prepared by applicant to identify her medical conditions for her MEB and that shows in item 25 (Physician's Summary and Elaboration of All Pertinent Data), in pertinent part, the physician's notes, as follows – * sleep walks * skin disease treated, no current problems * elbow pain from carpal tunnel, still painful * wears glasses * hemorrhoids, treated, still a problem * asthma, treated by medication * cyst removed from right wrist 1995 * depression treated 1998, patient states she has no homicidal or suicidal ideation at this time and is not currently depressed * dizziness, treated 1998, still a problem * shortness of breath/pain in chest treated 1999, EKG and […] monitor * cramps in legs * allergic to Darvon * loss of memory due to medication * periods of unconsciousness with fainting * chemotherapy medication for arthritis * easy fatigue because of medication * father and mother high blood pressure, diabetic, heart problems * denies suicidal ideas at present 12. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (PDA), Arlington, VA. a. The advisory official recommends the applicant's request for correction of her MEB and PEB findings be denied. b. The advisory official provided a summary of the diagnoses on the applicant's 10 August 2000 MEB proceedings. He stated the MEB noted the applicant's thought processing was linear and goal directed, and her memory and cognition were all grossly intact. The applicant's physical profile listed only the polyarthritis and depression as conditions that required any duty related limitations. In addition, her commander's statement noted the applicant's inability to perform her duties because of the symptoms related to polyarthritis and noted no other conditions that were hindering her performance of duty. On 14 August 2000, the applicant concurred with the MEB findings and indicated that the MEB "accurately covers all my medical conditions." c. On 18 August 2000, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for her polyarthritis and associated depression and rated these analogous to VASRD 5099-5002, arthritis rheumatoid, at 40%; symptom combinations productive of definite impairment of health or incapacitating exacerbations occurring 3 or more times a year. All other listed conditions were not found to be unfitting. The conditions were considered unstable for rating purposes and the applicant was placed on the TDRL for further evaluation. The applicant concurred with the PEB findings and waived her right to a formal board. d. On 25 March 2003, a TDRL evaluation by a PEB resulted in continuation on the TDRL. e. On 13 June 2005, a TDRL medical evaluation was conducted. During the exam the applicant informed the physician that she was due to graduate as a pharmacy technician the next month. She reported her depressive symptoms "got better" and she denied depressed mood, insomnia, diminished energy and concentration, and social withdrawal. She later noted her disagreement with the physician's report, indicated that her depression was not as improved as the report indicated, and provided some additional comments. The physician considered her comments and indicated that he confirmed the initial comments that she made to him and that his findings remained unchanged. f. On 13 December 2005, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for her polyarthritis without clinical evidence of active synovitis, depression resolved, and rated her at 20% analogous to VASRD 5099-5002, one or two exacerbations in a well-established diagnosis; separation with severance pay. The applicant concurred with the PEB findings and waived her right to a formal board. g. The advisory official states that the applicant has not provided any material relevant evidence of MEB or PEB error. The PEB reviewed the conditions that were listed by the medical authorities as being present in 2000; of which the applicant concurred. The PEB findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence; were not arbitrary or capricious; and were not in violation of any statute, directive, regulation, or policy in effect at the time the applicant's disability case was being adjudicated. 13. The applicant was provided a copy of the PDA advisory opinion and, on 29 October 2015, she provided her response. She stated that she was providing additional documents that may assist in providing some insight into her case and her separation from military service. a. She stated that her memory loss was addressed with her physician on 15 June 1999 and she refers to the previously provided medical record. She continued to take the prescribed medication until she was placed on the TDRL which caused confusion, altered state of mind, and mental cloudiness. b. She referred to the advisory official's reference to the commander's statement related to polyarthritis and to the MEB summary that shows inflammatory polyarthritis associated with major depression diagnosed in 1996 and asserts that both illnesses interfered with her job performance. She cannot explain why the commander did not address her major depression, which she had been struggling with for four years. c. She stated she was placed on the TDRL with the diagnosis of polyarthritis and major depression and remained on the TDRL until she was discharged in 2005. She added that she never completed a questionnaire pertaining to thoughts of suicidal ideation or any matter relating to her thoughts. She asserted that the physicians' (rheumatologist and psychiatrist) notes about conversations with her are not acceptable records in a mental illness case, she was not assessed properly, nor was she provided a copy of the final report. She questions if everything was done correctly. d. She noted that she was placed on the TDRL in August 2000 because her condition was not sufficiently stable for final disposition and, in March 2003, she was retained on the TDRL for the same reason. The final disposition by the PEB in December 2005 was based on the 5-year TDRL deadline and was arbitrary because her condition had not stabilized. She added that her struggle with and treatment for depression continues. She also restated her assertion that the final decision in 2005 does not accurately reflect her condition at the time. e. In support of her response to the advisory opinion, she provided copies of her 11 June 1999 military medical record; DA Form 3947, dated 10 August 2000; page 4 of the MEB Summary; page 2 of the MEB Addendum; and DA Form 199, dated 18 August 2000. (All of these records were previously considered in this Record of Proceedings.) 14. AR 635-40 sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform. Separation by reason of disability requires processing through the physical disability evaluation system (PDES). a. Chapter 3 (Policies) provides in: (1) paragraph 3-1 (Standards of unfitness because of physical disability) that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the natured and degree of physical disability present with the requirement of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating; and (2) paragraph 3-5 (Use of the VASRD) that only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. b. Chapter 4 (Procedures) provides: (1) in paragraph 4-10 (The MEB) that MEB's are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualification for retention based on criteria in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement). If the MEB determines the Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a PEB; and (2) in paragraph 4-12 (Informal Board) that each case is first considered by an informal PEB. Informal procedures reduce the overall time required to process a case through the disability evaluation system. An informal board must ensure that each case considered is complete and correct. All evidence in the case file must be closely examined and additional evidence obtained, if required. In addition, in all informal cases, the PEBLO of the medical treatment facility having control of the Soldier will be the counselor for the Soldier. As such, the PEBLO is primarily concerned with the Soldier's interests. The Soldier will be made fully aware of the election options available to him or her, the processing procedures, and the benefits to which he or she will be entitled if separated or retired for physical disability. c. Chapter 7 (TDRL) outlines procedures for administration and processing of Soldiers whose names are on the TDRL. (1) Paragraph 7-4 (Requirement for periodic medical examination and PEB evaluation) shows a Soldier on the TDRL must undergo a periodic medical examination and PEB evaluation at least once every 18 months to decide whether a change has occurred in the disability for which the Soldier was temporarily retired (2) Paragraph 7-5 (Prompt processing) shows, to prevent the Soldier suffering severe financial and other hardships, processing delays will be avoided. All portions of the medical examination will be conducted on a priority basis. All involved agencies and personnel will ensure that cases of Soldiers nearing expiration of 5-year TDRL tenure are identified and given priority processing. 15. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has a disability rated at least 30%. Section 1203 provides for the physical disability separation with severance pay of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rated at less than 30%. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends, in effect, that her records should be corrected to show she was permanently retired based on her unfitting medical conditions, including additional conditions that were not considered at the time of her MEB and initial PEB. 2. On 10 August 2000, an MEB convened and considered the applicant's clinical records, laboratory findings, physical examination with her report of medical history ,a MEB summary of the examination, and out-patient psychiatry narrative addendum. The MEB considered all of her medical conditions, recommended her case be referred to a PEB, and the applicant concurred with the MEB findings and recommendations. 3. On 18 August 2000, an informal PEB convened. The applicant's condition of inflammatory polyarthritis with associated depression was determined to be unfitting, but not sufficiently stable for final adjudication. The remaining MEB diagnoses were found not unfitting. a. The PEB recommended a combined rating of 40% and that the applicant be placed on the TDRL. b. The applicant concurred with the PEB proceedings and waived a formal hearing of her case. 4. On 25 March 2003, an informal PEB convened. Based on a review of the outpatient TDRL examination, the applicant's inflammatory polyarthritis with associated depression and definite social/industrial impairment was not sufficiently stabilized to permit final adjudication at the time. The PEB recommended retention on the TDRL for an additional period. 5. In June 2005, the examining psychiatrist conducted an outpatient TDRL evaluation of the applicant for major depressive disorder, recurrent, as manifested by depressed mood, insomnia, diminished energy and concentration, and social withdrawal. a. The applicant informed him she was due to graduate as a pharmacy technician the next month, she reported her depressive symptoms "got better" and she denied depressed mood, insomnia, diminished energy and concentration, and social withdrawal. b. The psychiatrist noted the applicant's thought processes were logical, coherent, and goal directed; her memory was grossly intact with spontaneous recollection of recent and remote events; her insight into her condition was fair; and her judgment was not impaired at the time of the interview. (1) On 2 September 2005, the applicant submitted her response to the psychiatrist's evaluation and offered reasons for disagreeing with the evaluation. She also acknowledged that she had improved since the last PEB evaluation . (2) The psychiatrist reviewed the applicant's statement and concluded that his initial findings were appropriate and did not require modification. 6. On 13 December 2005 an informal PEB convened. The applicant's condition of chronic inflammatory polyarthritis without clinical evidence of active synovitis, but with laboratory evidence of a chronic inflammatory process; fatigue and complaints of elbow pain rated as one or two exacerbations in a well-established diagnosis was found to be unfitting. Based on the out-patient evaluation, the PEB found the applicant's depression had resolved. The PEB noted that she had not seen a psychiatrist since August 2004, she did not use psychotropic medications, and her depression was considered to be in remission and not requiring treatment. a. The PEB recommended a combined rating of 20% and that the applicant's disposition be separated with severance pay, if otherwise qualified. b. The applicant indicated that she concurred, waived a formal hearing of her case, and she placed her signature on the PEB proceedings on 15 December 2005 . Thus, the evidence of record does not support her contention that the first time she viewed the PEB proceedings was in early 2015. 7. The evidence of record shows the applicant's case was thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered throughout the PDES process. She received periodic medical examinations and PEB evaluations during her 5-year tenure on the TDRL, the maximum authorized TDRL period. As such, the evidence of record does not support her contention that her removal from the TDRL was arbitrary. a. The applicant concurred with the MEB proceedings and three informal PEB proceedings, waived a formal hearing of her case on three separate occasions, and the final PEB proceedings were approved on 30 December 2005. b. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant's other medical conditions (individually or in combination) were found to be medically unfitting (emphasis added) during her initial MEB/PEB under the provisions of AR 40-501. In fact, her final NCOER shows both her rater and senior rater documented that she was successful in the performance of her principal duties. In accordance with the governing regulation, the periodic PEBs considered whether a change had occurred in the disability for which the applicant was temporarily retired. As such, there was no requirement to evaluate any of her other conditions because there is no evidence of record that they were found unfitting at the time she was placed on the TDRL. 8. In view of all of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ___x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ _x______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005365 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005365 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1