BOARD DATE: 24 October 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190010971 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * Upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable * Correct his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), ending 4 November 1974, to show his social security number (SSN) * Correct the separation program designators (SPD) listed on his DD Form 214, for the period ending 4 November 1974 APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) * Three DD Forms 4 (Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States) * Six DA Forms 2627-1 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice)) * Three DA Forms 2627-2 (Record of Appellate or Other Supplementary Actions under Article 15, UCMJ) * Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History) * Three SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) * SF 93 (Report of Medical History) * SF 601 (Health Record – Immunization Record) * Two DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) * Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) letter FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was issued three DD Forms 214; the last one, ending 4 November 1974, incorrectly listed his SSN . In addition, his last DD Form 214 shows an incorrect SPD: "JLF"; this SPD is used for separations based on drug use, and he asserts he never got in trouble for drugs. On that same DD Form 214, someone hand-wrote the SPD "JLG" above the "JLF" code; "JLG" reflects financial problems, but his leadership never counseled him, nor did they administer disciplinary action against him for financial issues. When he was being discharged and went to sign the paperwork, he saw they were withholding his pay. Because of this, he had to borrow money from someone for the return trip home. He questioned why his pay was being withheld, and he realized something was wrong. Regarding his request for an upgraded discharge, he argues, in effect, the Board should take into account he had "good service time" prior to his last enlistment; he notes he would not have been permitted to reenlist unless his service had been honorable. a. He had just turned 17 when he enlisted for the first time in January 1970; he got his parents to sign for him. He subsequently reenlisted to go to Germany; while in Germany, he felt he was "singled out" because of his disappointment at seeing others on drugs. He later reenlisted once more so he could go to Vietnam; he had high expectations of himself and others. He contended he made enemies by not conforming to the normal culture of drug/alcohol use and partying. It did not help that he was in an emotional state after his mother passed; she died while he was in basic combat training (BCT). b. The Board should find entries in his service records showing he appealed one of his nonjudicial punishments (NJP) under Article 15, based on the mental anguish he felt from his mother's death and the fact his father was really sick. He requested a hardship discharge, but they offered neither assistance nor medical help. He argues, being in Vietnam had been stressful enough for anyone, let alone an 18-year-old like himself. c. The applicant further asserts they gave him an NJP after he was sick; he was assigned to work somewhere other than the warehouse because he had contracted pneumonia. When he did not show up at the warehouse, his officer-in-charge (OIC) got mad and wrote him up. He argues, in effect, this was unjust because he was where he was supposed to be; he felt his OIC unfairly singled him out for something that was not really a disciplinary issue. 3. The applicant provides documents from his service record, to include an SF 89 (Report of Medical History), completed on his initial enlistment and showing he was suffering from depression or excessive worry; the examining physician noted the applicant was worried about his mother because she was in the hospital for cancer. 4. The applicant's service records show: a. After obtaining his parent's consent, he enlisted into the Regular Army on 8 January 1970 for a 3-year term; he was 17 years old. (1) His DD Form 4 showed he was issued a temporary identification number (TIN) (Soldiers who entered the Army without an SSN were issued a TIN, all of which had a "9" in the first digit; the TIN was used until the Soldier received his/her SSN). Upon completion of BCT at Fort Knox, KY, he was sent to Fort Leonard Wood for advanced individual training. (2) On 22 May 1970, a Fort Leonard Wood memorandum affirmed the applicant had been issued an SSN; the memorandum further stated the applicant's SSN was and directed all of the applicant's personnel records be updated accordingly. b. On 9 September 1970, while still at Fort Leonard Wood, the applicant was honorably discharged so he could immediately reenlist; his DD Form 214 showed he completed 8 months and 2 days of his initial enlistment contract, and he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal. c. On 10 September 1970, he reenlisted for 4 years. As a reenlistment option, he selected reassignment to Europe; as a result, permanent change of station (PCS) orders transferred him to Germany, and he arrived on 28 September 1970. d. On 10 January 1971, the applicant was honorably discharged, due to his immediate reenlistment. His DD Form 214 showed he completed 4 months and 1 day of his second enlistment contract; the DD Form 214 did not list any awards or decorations. e. On 11 January 1971, he reenlisted for 6 years; his DD Form 4 indicates he reenlisted for Vietnam. He departed Germany on 20 January 1971 and arrived in Vietnam on 12 March 1971. Effective 9 June 1971, his unit in Vietnam promoted him to specialist four (SP4)/E-4. f. On 3 September 1971, while still in Vietnam, he accepted NJP for unlawfully carrying a concealed, illegal weapon (.22 Caliber pistol) and for willfully disobeying his first sergeant's order to keep the illegal weapon in the unit's Armory. Punishment included reduction from SP4 to private first class (PFC)/E-3. g. On 22 January 1972, the applicant completed his tour in Vietnam and PCS orders reassigned him to Fort Eustis, VA; he arrived on 1 February 1972. Between March and June 1972, he accepted NJP on three occasions: * 28 March 1972 – failing to report for kitchen police at the time prescribed * 7 April 1972 – failing to maintain a clean-shaven appearance and to keep his hair trimmed * 29 June 1972 – failing to report for kitchen police at the time prescribed; punishment included reduction from PFC to private (PV2)/E-2 h. Effective 30 October 1972, the applicant's Fort Eustis chain of command promoted him to PFC. In or around December 1972, PCS orders reassigned the applicant from Fort Eustis to Germany; he arrived in Germany on 11 February 1973. While he was in Germany, Special Orders, dated 22 May 1973, awarded the applicant $30 in Superior Performance Pay; effective 13 June 1973, his leadership in Germany promoted him to SP4. i. On 19 October 1973, the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) in Germany advised the applicant via memorandum that a $50 check he had written to AAFES was returned for insufficient funds. j. On 27 November 1973, the applicant accepted NJP for using disrespectful language toward a staff sergeant (SSG) and for threatening to injure that same SSG; punishment included a suspended reduction to PFC. k. On 18 December 1973, AAFES provided the applicant written notice that he had rendered another dishonored check; this check was for $20. Between January and April 1974, the applicant's unit received three notices pertaining to dishonored checks and indebtedness: * 21 January 1974 – AAFES letter listed two dishonored checks, both for $50 * 31 January 1974 – an American civilian business advised the applicant's commander that the applicant was past due for a total of $128 * 23 April 1974 – a second American civilian business advised the applicant's commander the applicant obligated himself to make payments of $30 a month; as of the date of the letter, no payments had been received l. On or about 22 May 1974, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go at the prescribed time to his place of duty (the supply room) on three separate instances, respectively on 17, 18, and 20 May 1974. The imposing officer's punishment was reduction to PFC (suspended for 90 days), forfeiture of $110, 14 days restriction (suspended for 90 days), and 14 days extra duty. On 23 May 1974, the applicant filed an appeal. He submitted the following arguments: (1) During the period he was charged with failing to go to his place of duty, he was working extended and late hours in the unit supply room. For one full week prior, while his noncommissioned officer (NCO) leadership was away, he worked every day from 0430 until 1630. The hours he spent at the unit were part of last minute preparations for the Annual General Inspection. He felt, when no one bothered him, he was a good worker who did a superb job. During the period in question, he encountered several difficulties, to include having a personality conflict with one of the NCOs. (2) He also contended he had a real family problem; his father, whom he had not seen in 15 years, was quite ill and unable to work. While his father's illness may not have warranted a hardship discharge, his father's situation had a profound impact on the applicant; he sought help from a social worker for what could be termed as "mental anguish." To help calm his nerves, medical authority prescribed Valium and Librium (drugs used to treat anxiety). He stated his expectation that he would continue seeking aid from the Mental Hygiene Department. In light of all that had happened, he felt his punishment had been too harsh. m. On 4 June 1974, an American civilian business wrote the applicant's commander, stating the applicant owed the business $149 for cookware. On 7 June 1974, a German civilian advised the applicant's commander a German court had ordered the applicant to pay the equivalent of $498.85 for unpaid rent of stereo equipment. n. Between June and August 1974, the applicant's chain of command took the below-listed actions on the applicant's aforementioned NJP appeal: * 26 June 1974 – the NJP imposing officer mitigated the forfeiture of $110 by reducing it to $100 * 10 July 1974 – NJP appellate authority denied the applicant's appeal * 6 August 1974 – the NJP imposing officer vacated the applicant's suspensions for the reduction to PFC and 14 days' restriction o. On 7 September 1974, the applicant underwent a separation physical; the applicant did not identify any medical issues and the examining physician found no medical defects; the physician confirmed the applicant was qualified for separation. p. On 7 October 1974, the applicant's commander advised him in writing his intent to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 (Separation for Unfitness or Unsuitability), paragraph 13-5a (Unfitness). q. Also on 7 October 1974, a physician gave the applicant a mental status evaluation; the applicant met medical retention standards and, in the doctor's opinion, was not likely to benefit from further rehabilitative efforts. r. On 8 October 1974, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged counsel had advised him of the basis for the separation action; he waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers, to appear before the board of officers, and to be represented by counsel. He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. s. In his recommendation, the applicant's commander indicated the proposed separation was based on frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, an established pattern of shirking, and an established pattern of failing to pay just debts. (1) The commander stated, since the applicant's arrival in the unit, he was a constant source of petty problems. The applicant's conduct and efficiency had been substandard, and he displayed a very poor attitude toward the Army. The applicant was in constant conflict with existing regulations and directives. (2) In a separate 3-page memorandum to the separation authority, the applicant's commander provided additional details: (a) The applicant was over 21 years of age with nearly 5 years of service; since joining the unit, the applicant showed an unwillingness to overcome his weaknesses and grow to his age level. The applicant seemed to have very little respect for his superiors and took his military responsibilities lightly. When left to his own initiative, the applicant completed tasks below standard and he shirked undesirable work whenever possible. (b) In November 1973, the applicant was disrespectful toward an NCO and, as a result, he received NJP; however, on numerous other occasions, he showed hostility toward his superiors. When told something he did not want to hear, or to do something he did not like, the applicant was prone to begin mumbling unintelligibly, then thrust his arms dramatically downward and stomp away. In effect, while such tantrums might not be sufficient to warrant prosecution for insubordination, the applicant's behavior was nonetheless intolerable in a disciplined organization. (c) As a further example of the applicant's immature behavior, in early 1974, he threatened the well-being of a special court-martial witness, and later admitted to the threat while under oath and testifying before the military judge. The commander verbally reprimanded the applicant for his behavior. (d) The applicant's tenure in the unit was marked by a desire for "instant gratification." During his first several months, his pay fluctuated constantly, due to his habit of requesting partial pays, and starting, then stopping allotments; he claimed his previous unit had mismanaged his pay. The applicant also entered into debt so he could buy clothes, rent/purchase expensive audio equipment, and purchase a car; all this occurred around the same time he was applying for a hardship discharge, which he claimed was necessary because his parents needed his support. The applicant also entered into several contractual agreements with commercial companies and fellow Soldiers, and he frequently failed to uphold his end of the bargain. He made a verbal agreement with a retired master sergeant (MSG) to purchase a Volkswagen bus; he gave the retired MSG a down payment, amateurishly painted the vehicle, drove it extensively, and then refused to pay the balance owed. The MSG eventually had repossess the car in its altered condition. (e) The commander provided details about the applicant's other NJPs and concluded by noting the applicant's conduct had "apparently ranged from marginal to unsatisfactory for more than four and one-half years, and it (was) unlikely that his attitude or general conduct (would) improve." t. On 22 October 1974, the Staff Judge Advocate's (SJA) office provided a legal review. The SJA stated there was no legal objection to the action, and noted the action was based on the following AR 635-200 paragraphs: 13-5a (1) (Frequent Incidents of a Discreditable Nature with Civil and Military Authorities), 13-5a (4) (Established Pattern of Shirking), and 13-5a (5) (Established Pattern showing Dishonorable Failure to Pay Just Debts); the SJA specifically stated the discharge action was not based on drugs. u. On or about 24 October 1974, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate under other than honorable conditions; the cited authority was AR 635-200, paragraphs 13-5a (1), 13-5a (4), and 13-5a (5). The separation authority also directed the applicant's reduction from PFC to PV1. v. On 4 November 1974, the applicant was separated under other than honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 showed the following: * Item 3 (SSN) * Item 9c (Authority and Reason) – AR 635-200, Paragraph 13-5a (1), (3), (5), SPD JLB (frequent involvement of a discreditable nature), JLF (Drug Abuse), JLG (Chronic Default of Payment of Legal Debt) * Item 19 (Indochina or Korea Service since August 5, 1964) – 12 March 1971 to 22 January 1972 * Item 26 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) – National Defense Service Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960), two marksmanship qualification badges, and one overseas service bar w. A review of an extract from the applicant's military medical records shows the following entries: * 8 May 1974 – illegible entry * 21 May 1974 – (next entry in sequence) applicant marked as AWOL (absent without leave) while he was on sick call; the applicant's unit was called, but there was no answer * 23 May 1974 – applicant prescribed Valium * 30 May 1974 – applicant prescribed Librium * 5 June 1974 – wart on foot; wart clinic; no running for 2 weeks * 13 June 1974 – chest congestion, nasal congestion, nausea, dry heaves, and vomiting; impression: Viral Syndrome; light duty indoors for 48 hours x. On 22 April 1977, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), requesting an upgraded character of service. (1) The applicant stated: (a) He quit school so he could voluntarily enter the Army; during his first year of service, he got his GED (General Education Diploma). He reenlisted to serve in Vietnam when he was 18; unlike many others, he was proud he went to Vietnam. He wanted to remain on active duty long enough to retire, but, unfortunately, he was not able to do so due to events that led to his adverse discharge. (b) He claimed he did not know why he was separated and stated he learned of his pending discharge by accident; when he asked why, they would not tell him. Additionally, the person who prepared his separation packet said the applicant's packet was "the best one that he ever prepared." Because of this comment, the applicant felt there was no use even trying to redeem himself. He asked his commander for a rehabilitative transfer, but his commander "totally refused." (c) He indicated he had since married and was raising a family; he maintained he had matured a lot since his discharge, but his character of service kept him from getting a decent job. (2) On 22 August 1978, the ADRB found the applicant's separation was proper and equitable. The presiding officer commented the letter by the applicant's commander gave a clear and concise picture as to why the applicant was discharged; that letter, coupled with the applicant's formal disciplinary record, was sufficient for the ADRB to make its determination. (3) Of the five board members, one voted for an upgrade to a general discharge under honorable conditions; that member indicated the applicant had earned generally excellent ratings during his first 32 months of service. In addition, the applicant had no bad time and was not offered a rehabilitative transfer; in the member's view, the foregoing warranted an under honorable conditions character of service. 5. While the Army has an interest in maintaining the integrity of its records, such that events are reflected as they were documented at the time, the evidence of record affirms the applicant's SSN was inaccurately listed on his DD Form 214, ending 4 November 1974. In addition, the applicant's separation packet validates the separation authority and associated SPDs reflected on that DD Form 214 are not correct. 6. The applicant contends, in effect, his chain of command unfairly singled him out with unjust disciplinary actions and then separated him under other than honorable conditions. He notes he experienced mental anguish as a result of his mother's death and his father's serious illness; despite this, his leadership offered no assistance and apparently failed to appropriately consider his circumstances. a. During the applicant's era of service, commanders were to initiate separation actions against Soldiers whose conduct showed they were unfit for continued military service, based on one or more of the following: frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, an established pattern of shirking, and an established pattern of failing to pay just debts. b. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 7. Concerning the applicant's assertion the Army withheld his pay when he separated, which required him to borrow money from someone for the return trip home: the Department of Defense Military Pay and Allowances Entitlements Manual, in effect at the time, stated Soldiers separated with an undesirable discharge under other than honorable conditions were entitled to no more than $25 as a discharge gratuity; if the Soldier had some money on hand, but it was less than $25, he/she was to be paid the difference between the funds he/she possessed and $25. 8. AR 635-5-1 (SPD), in effect at the time, named the specific authorities and reasons for separation, and showed the associated SPD codes. Soldiers separated under paragraph 13-5a were to receive the following SPDs: • Paragraph 13-5a (1) – JLB (Unfitness – Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature with Authorities) • Paragraph 13-5a (4) – JLJ (Unfitness – Shirking) • Paragraph 13-5a (5) – JLG (Unfitness – Chronic Default of Payment of Legal Debt) BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, regulatory requirements, and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his failure to pay numerous just debts and the numerous incidents of misconduct, and the reason for his separation as being failure to pay just debts. The Board noted that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his Under Other than Honorable Discharge to a General Under Honorable Conditions discharge as a matter of equity and in consideration of his prior honorable service. However, this Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct for further upgrade it to a fully honorable discharge and there was no post-service evidence to justify a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that there was no error or injustice in the applicant’s discharge or character of service as upgraded by the ADRB, or basis for clemency. 2. The Board did find that there were errors in the applicant’s SSN, Authority and Reason for discharge, and SPD on his final DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 November 1974 and that these should be corrected. The Board also recommends making the corrections identified in the Administrative Note(s) below. 3. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that partial relief is warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 November 1974: a. His correct SSN. b. The authority for separation discharge as AR 635-200, para 13-5a (1), (4), (5). c. The reason for separation as “Unfitness – Frequent Involvement of a Discreditable Nature with Authorities; Shirking; Chronic Default of Payment of Legal Debt.” d. The SPD as JLB/JLJ/JLG. e. Making the corrections identified in the Administrative Note(s) below. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrade of the applicant’s general under honorable character of separation. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): 1. AR 600-8-22 states a bronze service star will be awarded for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal for participation in each campaign. Recognized campaigns for Vietnam include: * Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase VII (1 July 1970 to 30 June 1971) * Consolidation I (1 July 1971 to 30 November 1971) * Consolidation II (1 December 1971 to 29 March 1972) 2. Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (Unit Citation and Campaign Participation Credit Register) shows all units in Vietnam were awarded the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation based on DAGO Number 8, dated 1974. As a result, amend his DD Form 214, ending 4 November 1974, to: * Delete the Vietnam Service Medal * Add the Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze service stars * Add the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, 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. 2. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. a. Paragraph 1-9d (Honorable) stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor and was conditioned on the proper military behavior and proficient duty performance of the Soldier. Due consideration was to be given to the Soldier's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. b. Paragraph 1-9e (General Discharge), stated a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions and was issued to members whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 13 required commanders to initiate separation action against Soldiers who were either unfit or unsuitable for continued military service. Unfitness applied to Soldiers whose conduct included on one or more of the following: frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, an established pattern of shirking, and an established pattern of failing to pay just debts. . 3. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 4. AR 600-2 (Name and Birth Data, Social Security Account, and Temporary Identification Number (TIN)), in effect at the time, prescribed the procedures used for recording, issuing, or changing personnel information normally used as a means of identification. a. Chapter 4 (TIN) prescribed the procedures for issuing a TIN as a means of personnel identification for those individuals being processed for military service who did not have an SSN. The number "9" was designated as the first number of the 9-digit TIN. b. The TIN would be entered in pencil on Armed Forces Examining and Entrance Station records in those items reserved for recording the SSN at the time of pre- enlistment or pre-induction processing. Upon receipt of a social security card by the individual prior to entrance into the active Army, the pencil entry of the TIN would be replaced by a permanent entry of the SSN. c. Where the individual came on active duty without an SSN, the TIN would be noted as a permanent entry on all records. Upon receipt of an SSN, the TIN entry would be lined out and the SSN would be entered. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190010971 10 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190010971 13 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190010971 11