IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 January 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150002929 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: The applicant defers her request, statement, and evidence to counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests: * removal of the DA Form 67-9 (Officer Evaluation Report for the rating period 20110822 through 20120207 (hereafter referred to as the contested OER) from her official military personnel file (OMPF) * reinstatement into the officer's corps in the rank of first lieutenant (1LT) * special selection board (SSB) for promotion to captain (CPT) * removal of all documents related to her non-selection for promotion from her OMPF 2. Counsel states: * there is one material error that substantially prejudiced her rights; the contested OER was, by the rater's admission, downgraded because of her pregnancy * she appealed to the Officer Special Review Board (OSRB) based on substantive inaccuracy but her petition was denied * she provided the OSRB with a sworn statement in an Army Regulation (AR) 15-6 (Procedures for Investigation Officer and Board of Officers) that addressed the unfair/unequal treatment and rater's hostile work environment * the rater gave her a mediocre rating because she was pregnant, on maternity leave, and on a physical profile during the rating period * the senior rater gave her a "Fully Qualified" and "Best Qualified" rating * the rater told CPT FF (the commander of another unit) that he wanted her out of the unit because she was pregnant * following her non-selection, she submitted her officer resignation in order to enlist as she was prior service * her resignation was clearly the result of Equal Opportunity (EO) violations by her detachment commander * she would have been promoted to CPT, but for the contested OER that resulted from her detachment commander’s improper assessment of her performance * the detachment commander exhibited a toxic leadership environment by making inappropriate comments related to Soldiers’ medical issues to include her pregnancy * multiple letters of recommendation and/or support attest to the discrimination based on her pregnancy and multiple leave of absences for medical appointments * the detachment commander, CPT MCH, admitted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) AKH, the 4th Special Troops Battalion Commander that his evaluation was based on the applicant’s medical condition (pregnancy) * she was not counseled concerning substandard duty or unsatisfactory duty performance and there was no evidence of a downturn in her duty performance * LTC AKH, the newly appointed battalion commander, personally removed CPT MCH from the duties of detachment commander * LTC AKH recommends removal of the contested OER 3. Counsel provides: * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report) * DA Form 1059-1 (Civilian Institution Academic Evaluation * OERs for the rating periods 20121230-20131022, 20120208-20121229, 20110822-20120207, and 20110204-20110731 * Notification of Separation due to Non-Selection for Promotion, dated 22 August 2013 * Resignation for the Purpose of Enlistment/Reenlistment in the Regular Army, dated 6 December 2013 * Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request with allied documents * DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigation Officer (IO)/Board of Officers) with supporting statements * Memorandum of Findings and Recommendations, dated 2 October 2012 * medical documents substantiating her pregnancy * supporting statement from LTC LDE, J-1, Joint Staff (her former senior rater), dated 24 March 2013 * OSRB denial decision, dated 16 May 2013 * memorandum of support from LTC AKH, battalion commander * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Officer Record Brief CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant's records show she enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 January 2002 and she held military occupational specialty 44C (Financial Management Technician). 2. She served in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments including two deployments to Kuwait and Iraq. She was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 in November 2008. 3. She was honorably discharged from active duty on 1 April 2009 to accept a commission or warrant officer appointment in the Army. Her DD Form 214 for her enlisted period of service shows she completed 7 years, 2 months, and 22 days of active service. 4. She was appointed as a Regular Army commissioned officer and executed an oath of office on 2 April 2009. She successfully completed the Ordnance Basic Officer Leader Course in September 2009. She was promoted to 1LT on 2 October 2010. 5. She was assigned to Fort Hood, TX in February 2011. In August 2011, she was reassigned to the 80th Movement Control Team (MCT), 49th Transportation Battalion (Movement Control), 4th Sustainment Brigade. 6. During February 2012, she received the contested OER, a "Complete the Record" OER, which covered 6 months of rated time from 22 August 2011 through 7 February 2012 for her duties as Movements Control Officer supervising two noncommissioned officers (NCO) and 8 lower enlisted personnel. Her rater was CPT MCH, the detachment commander, and her senior rater was LTC LDE, the battalion commander. The OER shows the following entries: a. In Part IVa (Performance Evaluation-Professionalism-Values), the rater placed an "X" in all the "Yes" blocks for all 7 values. b. In Part IVb (Performance Evaluation-Professionalism-Leader Attributes/Skills/Actions), the rater placed an "X" in the "Yes" block for the appropriate attributes, skills, and actions. c. In Part IVc (Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), Date, Height, and Weight), the rater entered the height/weight as 66/138 with the entry "Yes" (indicating the applicant met the height and weight standards) and left the APFT entry and corresponding date blank. d. In Part Va (Performance Potential Evaluation), the rater placed an "X" in the "Satisfactory Performance-Promote" block and entered his comments in Part Vb, as follows: [The applicant] performed well during this rating period. [The applicant] took on the role of movements control officer and acted as the 80th MCT executive officer. The personnel, supply, and headquarters section ran well under the guidance of [the applicant]. [The applicant] led the maintenance program through inspection from 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) (SC(E)) which resulted in a 91% in the area of SAMS-1E/Dispatching/TAMSS and a 96% in the area of Army Material Status System (AMSS). [The applicant] was an integral part of handling our USR Reporting. [The applicant] completed 3 credit hours towards Dual Masters for Masters of Business Administration Degree (MBA) and Masters of Science: Supply Chain Management and Acquisition Degree. Exempt from APFT/Height/Weight requirement in accordance of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and AR 600-9 (Army Weight Control Program). The rated officer has initiated an Army Multi-Source Assessment and Feedback/360 as required by AR 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development). e. In Part Vc (Comments on Potential for Promotion) the rater stated "Promote with peers to CPT. [The applicant] has great potential." f. In Part VII (Senior Rater), the Senior Rater placed an "X" in the "Fully Qualified," placed the entry "Center of Mass" and indicated he senior rated 16 officers in that grade at the time. He then entered the following comments: [The applicant] is a smart and intelligent young officer. Her performance as the executive officer of the 80th Movement Control Team has been admirable. [The applicant] consistently represented the commander in his absence. Most notable was her ability to effectively articulate the status of her detachment's maintenance and supply operations. As she continues to learn and grow, consider her for positions of increased responsibility. Promote to CPT and assign in key staff billets. Her potential for success in the future is good. 7. On 8 February 2012, she was reassigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 4th Special Troops Battalion, 4th Sustainment Brigade, as the Battalion S-4. 8. The contested OER was signed by her rater and senior rater on 9 March 2012 and by the applicant on 20 March 2012. It was posted to her OMPF on 20 March 2012. 9. On 25 August 2012, an IO was appointed to conduct an informal AR 15-6 investigation into the toxic leadership or unfair/unequal treatment of members of the 80th MCT by one of the team NCOs and by the detachment commander. There was an allegation the NCO kept alcohol in his office desk, consumed alcohol during the duty day, and provided alcohol to subordinate Soldiers. a. The IO found that based on the statements made, the credibility of the witness statements, and the fact that the Fort Hood Inspector General Office confirmed that numerous complaints had been made about unfair/unequal treatment and a hostile work environment (unable to provide specific dates or specific names), it was his conclusion that the detachment commander and the NCO were previously advised/counseled concerning their toxic leadership environment; however, they still acted in a manner that resulted in a work environment that was not conducive to the good order and discipline of members of the 80th MCT. b. The IO found that based on the witness statements made, the evidence presented, and the credibility of the witnesses, he concluded that the NCO did have alcohol in his office, but there was no definitive proof the NCO consumed alcohol during the day or provided alcohol to Soldiers. c. In conclusion, the IO recommended removal of the NCO from the position of detachment sergeant and removal of the detachment commander. 10. In March 2013, she appealed the contested OER to the OSRB based on substantive inaccuracy. She raised a similar argument as she now contends. 11. On 16 May 2013, the OSRB unanimously voted to deny her appeal. The OSRB determined the applicant did not establish clearly or convincingly a material error existed that would warrant removal of the contested OER. The applicant did not request a Commander’s Inquiry upon receipt of her contested OER which could have shed light on her issues and provided clarity in relation to the specific circumstances involved in the preparation of the contested OER. The applicant did not provide evidence to show the considered opinions and the objective judgments of the rating officials were inaccurate, unjust, or otherwise flawed. 12. On 22 August 2013, by memorandum, the applicant was notified that she was considered for promotion to CPT by the Fiscal Year 2013 CPT, Army Competitive Category Promotion Selection Board but she was not selected for promotion. Since this was her second non-selection and since the promotion board's report was approved in July 2013, she must separate no later than 1 February 2014. 13. On 6 December 2013, by memorandum through her chain of command, the applicant submitted a request for resignation for the purpose of enlistment in the Regular Army. She contended that the reason for her resignation was the two-time non-selection for promotion and the reason for her non-selection was the contested OER. The promotion board’s instructions were to select the best qualified officers. Her senior rater's view of her was skewed by the rater's ?unsatisfactory rating? which resulted in a "Fully Qualified" OER and thus her non-selection for promotion to CPT. She asserted her rights were violated under the provision of the laws of Equal Opportunity based on her medical condition. 14. She was honorably discharged from active duty in the rank of 1LT on 30 January 2014 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment in the Regular Army. Her DD Form 214 for this period shows she completed 4 years, 9 months, and 29 days of active service. 15. She enlisted in the Regular Army in the rank/grade of SSG/E-6 on 31 January 2014. She is currently assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 13th Sustainment Command in her original enlisted MOS of 44C. 16. A review of her OSRB appeal shows she submitted the same documents she now submits with her current application to this Board. One of the supporting statements of evidence is a memorandum for record, dated 2 October 2012, signed by the IO. In it, the IO states that he conducted a telephonic interview with another CPT, the commander of the 59th MCT, regarding the allegations made against the applicant's rater and one of the unit NCOs. a. One of the direct questions stated, "At any point, did you have a conversation with the [applicant's rater] about his executive officer, [the applicant] regarding the fact that he wanted to remove her because she was pregnant? Answer: "That is exactly how the conversation happened but yes we were talking about our lieutenants and I was expressing the issues that I was having with one of my LTs and [the applicant' rater] said that he would trade [the applicant] because she was never there because of appointments.? The interviewee stated she told the applicant's rater that it did not seem fair because the applicant was pregnant, had the baby and that she seemed pretty squared away as an officer. b. The interviewer stated, ?Did this conversation make you feel that [the applicant's rater] was being unfair to [the applicant] because of her medical condition?" She responded that it seemed that he was being a little hard on the applicant since she was pregnant and just had a baby. ?I told him at least that was an issue that would resolve itself in time." 17. The applicant provided a statement, dated 1 February 2013, from LTC AKH, the battalion commander of the 4th Special Troops Battalion. She states that her memorandum is to give credibility and context to the events that took place in the last year regarding the duty performance and work environment of the applicant. a. In April 2012, the 80th MCT was reorganized under her battalion' s mission command. The commander at that time was CPT MCH (the applicant's rater). The applicant was the mobility officer and executive officer under CPT MCH from April 2012 until July 2012 and LTC AKH was not aware of any workplace tensions that existed in the unit at that time. b. Upon the release of the Fiscal Year 2012 promotion selection list in July 2012, the applicant was notified of her non-selection to CPT. In an effort to determine what items in her file caused this non-selection, LTC AKH reviewed the applicant’s official file and noted only one item indicated sub-par performance in her professional opinion. An OER dated 7 February 2012 (the contested OER) indicated that she demonstrated only ?Satisfactory Performance? by the rater and was “Fully Qualified? by the senior rater. In her opinion, this evaluation was in stark contrast to the LTs that were selected by the promotion board who received ratings of "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote" and "Best Qualified." c. LTC AKH first discussed this evaluation with CPT MCH to see what performance areas the applicant needed to improve in order to better compete for promotion. His immediate response was that he could not rate her "Outstanding Performance, Must Promote? because she had been on medical profile the duration of the evaluation period. CPT MCH did not have counseling statements to support a downturn in the applicant’s duty performance or stated objectives the applicant needed to improve. d. In mid-August 2012, the applicant approached LTC AKH under the open door policy and stated her work environment had become unbearable and she felt threatened by CPT MCH and the behavior that he condoned from the detachment sergeant. LTC AKH spoke with the company commander and it did not seem he was open to resolving the tensions between the applicant and himself. LTC AKH moved her as a last resort to her battalion headquarters in order to investigate the detachment’s hostile work environment allegations. e. On or about 22 August 2012, an Inspector General complaint was received from members of the 80th MCT. The complaint stated the commander and detachment sergeant treated personnel who were on profile unfairly as well as a charge of covering up an alcohol-related incident in the workplace. LTC AKH requested an AR 15-6 be conducted to investigate the allegations. In November 2012, the AR 15-6 report was finalized and it indicated that there had been a negative command climate in 80th MCT and that not all members of the command team had acted with dignity and respect towards personnel in the unit. The applicant was one of the witnesses who demonstrated through her testimony and it was corroborated through other witness statements that this behavior had taken place and she had been a recipient of this unfair treatment. As a result of the findings of this investigation, LTC AKH removed both the detachment sergeant and detachment commander from their unit leadership positions. f. LTC AKH’s professional opinion is the applicant worked in a hostile environment. The applicant was mired in a negative command climate that she believed prejudiced the rater and ultimately the senior rater’s view of the applicant on the one evaluation she had in her OMPF that most likely led to her non-selection for promotion to captain. LTC AKH believes the OER dated 7 February 2012 should be overturned and removed from her OMPF. 18. The applicant provided a statement from LTC LDE, J-4 Action Officer, Joint Staff. He stated that he previously served as the applicant's battalion commander from August 2011 to March 2012. During that time, he saw an officer who was fully supportive of her commander and committed to mission accomplishment. She did not have the opportunity to develop under the normal process of most young officers due to educational commitments (obtaining her undergraduate degree) and she was compared to a peer group of seasoned lieutenants who had the opportunity to grow. Nevertheless, she showed improvement as a junior officer. He supports her promotion to CPT. 19. AR 623-3 (Evaluation Reporting System (ERS)) prescribes the policies for completing evaluation reports that support the ERS. a. Paragraph 1-9 states Army evaluation reports are assessments on how well the rated Soldier met duty requirements and adhered to the professional standards of the Army officer or noncommissioned officer corps. Performance will be evaluated by observing action, demonstrated behavior, and results from the point of view of the values, leadership framework and responsibilities identified on the evaluation forms, counseling forms, and as explained in DA Pam 623-3. Consideration will be given to the relative experience of the rated officer; the efforts made by the rated officer; and the results that could be reasonably expected given the time and resources available. Potential evaluations will be performance-based assessments of the rated officers of the same grade to perform in positions of greater responsibility and/or higher grades. Assessment of potential will apply to all officers, regardless of their opportunity to be selected for higher positions or grades. b. Paragraph 2-12i states the rater will provide an objective and comprehensive evaluation of the rated Soldier’s performance and potential on the OER. c. Paragraph 3-39 states evaluation reports accepted for inclusion in the official record of a Soldier are presumed to be administratively correct, been prepared by the proper rating officials, and represent the considered opinion and objective judgment of rating officials at the time of preparation. To justify deletion or amendment of a report, the appellant must produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that the presumption of regularity should not be applied to the report under consideration or that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility of administrative error or factual inaccuracy. The burden of proof rests with the appellant. d. Paragraphs 6-3 and 6-4 state, in pertinent part, that the primary purpose of a Commander's Inquiry (CI) is to provide a greater degree of command involvement in preventing obvious injustices to the rated Soldier and correcting errors before they become a matter of permanent record. A secondary purpose is to obtain command involvement in clarifying errors or injustices after the evaluation is accepted at HQDA. However, in these after-the-facts cases, this paragraph is not intended to be a substitute for the appeals process, which is the primary means of addressing errors and injustices after they have become a matter of permanent record. e. Paragraph 6-11a states the burden of proof rests with the appellant to justify deletion or amendment of a report. The appellant will produce evidence that establishes clearly and convincingly that (1) the presumption of regularity will not be applied to the report under consideration, and (2) action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence will be of a strong and compelling nature, not merely proof of the possibility or administrative error or factual inaccuracy. If the adjudication authority is convinced that an appellant is correct in some or all of the assertions, the clear and convincing standard has been met with regard to those assertions. f. Paragraph 6-11d states that for a claim of inaccuracy or injustice of a substantive type in an evaluation report, evidence will include statements from third parties, rating officials or other documents from official sources. Third parties are persons other than the rated officer or rating officials who have knowledge of the appellant's performance during the rating period. Such statements are afforded more weight if they are from persons who served in positions allowing them a good opportunity to observe firsthand the appellant's performance as well as interactions with rating officials. Statements from rating officials are also acceptable if they relate to allegations of factual errors, erroneous perceptions, or claims of bias. To the extent practical, such statements will include specific details of events or circumstances leading to inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or injustice at the time the report was rendered. 20. DA Pamphlet 623-3 provides step by step guidance to completing the DA Form 67-9. It states for pregnant officers who have not taken the APFT within the last 12 months due to pregnancy, convalescent leave, and temporary profile, the rater will enter the following statement, ?Exempt from APFT requirements in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501.? 21. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) governs the composition of the OMPF and states that the performance section is used for filing performance, commendatory, and disciplinary data. Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file. The document will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by certain agencies, to include this Board. Army Regulation 600-8-104 which is currently updated via online updates conducted periodically by the HRC states: * the DA Form 67-9 is filed in the performance section of the OMPF * letters of notification to officers considered for promotion but not selected are filed in the “Service” folder 22. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) prescribes the officer promotion function of the military personnel system. It provides principles of support, standards of service, policies, tasks, rules, and steps governing all work required in the field to support officer promotions. Chapter 7 provides for SSBs: a. Paragraph 7-2 states the SSBs may be convened under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 628 to consider or reconsider commissioned or warrant officers for promotion when HQDA discovers one or more of the following: (1) An officer was not considered from in or above the promotion zone by a regularly scheduled board because of administrative error. This would include officers who missed a regularly scheduled board while on the temporary disability retired list and who have since been placed on the active duty list (SSB required). (2) The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone acted contrary to law or made a material error (SSB discretionary). (3) The board that considered an officer from in or above the promotion zone did not have before it some material information (SSB discretionary). b. Paragraph 7-3 (Cases not considered) states an officer will not be considered or reconsidered for promotion by an SSB when several conditions occur. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant was assigned as a movement control officer in the 80th MCT of the 49th Transportation Battalion at Fort Hood. She received a ?Complete the Record? OER covering 6 months of rated time. The contested OER is neither referred nor negative; on the contrary it is a positive OER with positive comments. It does not address or refer to the applicant's pregnancy. The only section that is related to her medical health is in the APFT data. As required by regulatory guidance, the rater left the APFT data and date blank and explained that the applicant was exempt from this requirement in accordance with applicable regulations. 2. The applicant believes she received a substandard rating that was influenced by the fact that she was pregnant. She contends the rater's comments and/or judgments that her performance was satisfactory is an alleged error and/or injustice, specifically that the rating should have been “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote” by the rater and “Best Qualified” and possibly an “Above Center Mass? potential evaluation by her senior rater. There is no evidence she requested a Commander’s Inquiry to look into the alleged injustices. She chose to appeal the contested OER to the OSRB. The OSRB carefully considered her appeal but found insufficient evidence to substantiate the removal of the OER. 3. The AR 15-6 substantiated a finding that the applicant's rater and detachment sergeant acted in a manner that resulted in a work environment that was not conducive to the good order and discipline of the 80th MCT. This finding was further confirmed by LTC AKH, the battalion commander of the 4th Special Troops Battalion, who rendered a statement to give credibility and context to the events that took place concerning the duty performance and work environment of the applicant. However, such statements and the ensuing investigation do not support a finding of an inaccurate, unjust, or erroneous OER. 4. The rater and senior rater appear to have evaluated the applicant's duty performance, not her medical condition as she contends. Her rater described her performance as "well," "satisfactory," "the section ran well," and "she was an integral part." Her potential for promotion is also described as "promote." Her senior rater rated her "Fully Capable" and recommended her promotion to CPT. Not one single word is mentioned in relation to her pregnancy or a violation of her rights. The narrative comments are positive and focus on her duty performance and potential to serve in positions of higher responsibility. The applicant’s senior rater provided a memorandum supporting her application wherein he again affirmed her satisfactory duty performance and potential for promotion. 5. The applicant’s duty performance throughout her career was noted. However, the fact that the contested OER is inconsistent with the other reports she previously or subsequently received, albeit from the same rater, has no bearing on the contested OER. By regulation, each report is an independent evaluation of a rated Soldier for a specific rating period and, essentially, "stands alone." 6. In order to support the removal, amendment or correction of an OER, there must be evidence that clearly and convincingly establishes that the presumption of regularity should not be applied and that action is warranted to correct a material error, inaccuracy, or injustice. Clear and convincing evidence must be of a strong and compelling nature. This is not the case here. 7. The OER reflects her performance during the rating period as seen and judged by her rating officials. Her dissatisfaction with the rating does not negate the OER or make it an invalid OER. Likewise, her belief that the contested OER does not reflect a true picture of her performance is insufficient to impeach the rating officials' assessment of her performance during the contested rating period. 8. There is no evidence and she and her counsel have not provided sufficiently compelling evidence which shows the contested OER is substantively inaccurate and does not accurately reflect her performance or potential or that her rater and/or senior rater did not comply with the regulatory requirements of evaluating her in a fair and unbiased manner. 9. Aside from her dissatisfaction and her disbelief that someone of her caliber would receive a "Center of Mass" rating, the applicant did not provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the "presumption of regularity" to justify the removal of the contested OER. Based on the applicable regulations, the contested OER is correct as constituted and the applicant did not meet the burden of proof to justify removal of the contested OER. 10. An SSB is appropriate when there is a material error in the record. Material error in this context is one or more errors of such a nature that in the judgment of the reviewing official (or body) it caused an individual's non-selection by a promotion board and that had such error(s) been corrected at the time the individual was considered, a reasonable chance would have resulted that the individual would have been recommended for promotion. There is none here. She does not provide any evidence of a material error. a. She was considered for promotion to CPT by two promotion boards but she was not selected for promotion. The exact reason(s) for her non-selection for promotion are unknown because statutory requirements set forth in the law prevent disclosure of board proceedings to anyone who was not a member of the presiding board. It can only be concluded that the promotion board(s) determined that her overall record when compared with the records of her contemporaries, did not reflect as high a potential as those selected. b. The absence of derogatory information in her file would suggest a reasonable thought that the contested OER was the reason for her non-selection; however, such an attempt to pin the specific reason for her non-selection on the contested OER is speculative at best. The applicant is not eligible for consideration for promotion by an SSB because she has not shown a material error in her promotion file. 11. Appointments and reappointments of commissioned officers into the Army are at the direction of the President of the United States and can be delegated to the Secretary of Defense. The ABCMR may only correct Army records. The Board has no authority to correct records created by other services or the Department of Defense. As a result, reinstatement of her commission is not within the purview of this Board. 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) AR20150002929 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150002929 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1