BOARD DATE: 9 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130019456 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 correction of his military records to show he is not liable for the loss of government property in the Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss (FLIPL) #WA---A-12-2-9-0--3 in the amount of $4,951.80. 2. The applicant states that: a. In January 2012, FLIPL #WA---A-12-2-9-0--3 was initiated to account for the loss of property discovered during the change of command inventory. The investigating officer (IO) determined there was no proximate cause to hold him liable and recommended that no financial liability be assessed. b. Captain (CPT) H---, the Brigade Judge Advocate General (JAG), disagreed stating that the applicant was the last person in the audit trail and therefore was liable for the loss. CPT H---- also stated that since a finding of liability would conflict with the IO's findings the approval authority would have to hear matters of reconsideration first before making a finding in accordance with (IAW) Army Regulation (AR) 735-5 (Property Accountability Policies), paragraph 13-34. c. He was never given a chance to request reconsideration. Colonel (COL) D------- found him liable for one month's base pay without stating a reason. He appealed and COL D------ responded that the applicant was the last person in the audit trail and therefore was liable for the property. Brigadier General (BG) W-------, the approval authority, denied the applicant's appeal. d. The approving authority and both judge advocates (CPT H--- and CPT K-------) stated in their findings that the reason financial liability was imposed was due to the unfounded belief that the applicant was the last person in the audit trail for the property listed on the FLIPL. (1) COL D------- states, "Even if the losses occurred in previous commands, this fact does not prohibit the assessment of liability on the last person on the audit trail that took responsibility for military property as the Primary Hand-Receipt Holder (PHRH)." (2) CPT H--- states, "(The applicant's) inability to produce the missing items or present a valid sub-hand receipt establishes his negligence and culpability for the loss of accountability of military property." (3) CPT K------- states in his legal review, "There is no evidence to show that the property lost was sub-hand receipted down to any subordinates…(the applicant) was the proximate cause of the loss because he was the last responsible person in the audit trail." (4) BG W------- doesn't state his reason but it can be assumed he concurs with COL D------- and his own legal attorney. e. None of the previously-named individuals can point out in the investigation where it states or implies the applicant was the last person in the audit trail. They assume he was the last person because the IO never stated any other possible other party and he was the most visible person in the investigation. This is an error as all findings should have supporting evidence IAW AR 735-5, paragraph 13-32a. f. He was not the last person in the audit trail for the property listed in the FLIPL. All property identified was sub-hand receipted down to officers or noncommissioned officers under his command. Copies of the sub-hand receipts are provided. g. The IO did not find the applicant liable for the missing property and he made no mention of the applicant being the last person in the audit trail. h. Additionally, the IO stated he never talked with the supply sergeant (Staff Sergeant (SSG) D---- W-----) during the course of his investigation. The supply sergeant is the custodian of sub-hand receipts at the company level IAW AR 735-5, paragraph 13-29. If the IO had included him in the investigation he would have determined that the applicant was not the last person in the audit trail and, therefore, neither responsible, culpable, nor the proximate cause of the loss. The failure of the IO to interview SSG W----- violates AR 735-5, paragraph 13-31d which required the IO to interview and take statements from all witnesses whose testimony may be helpful in deciding the cause of, and liability for, the loss. i. COL D------- assessed liability without hearing matters of reconsideration. If he was going to assess liability against the applicant, AR 735-5, paragraph 13-34 required he provide the applicant with a chance to file matters of reconsideration before closing the FLIPL investigation and assessing liability. COL D------- was reminded by his own judge advocate but disregarded the advice and assessed liability on 22 February 2012. He already assigned liability when he read the applicant's request for reconsideration on 19 June 2012. j. The IO did not conduct a thorough investigation and did not follow local policy. The IO did not talk with SSG W, the company supply sergeant. Anyone familiar with Army supply management, especially a major (MAJ) should know that the supply sergeant has daily operational control over the company's command supply discipline program (CSDP) and is the custodian of all documents relating to the primary hand receipts. k. The omission of an interview with the supply sergeant demonstrates a lack of thoroughness in the investigation. Additionally, the IO does not have any chronology of his investigation as required by the appointment memorandum. The IO's investigation does not contain any exhibits or reference any other documents to support his findings. Based on this lack of objectivity, this investigation is legally insufficient. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * Memorandum, Subject: AR 15-6 (Procedures for Investigating Officers and Board of Officers), dated 29 December 2011 * Memorandum, Subject: Legal Review of AR 15-6 Investigation, dated 3 February 2013 * DD Form 200 (FLIPL) #WA---A-12-2-9-0--3, dated 22 February 2012, with enclosures CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is a Regular Army logistics CPT. A 7 December 2011 change of command property inventory revealed government property was missing of a total value of approximately $72,163.60. 2. A 9 February 2012 memorandum shows MAJ A----- T----- was appointed as an IO to conduct an informal investigation into the suspected loss of accountability of property within Echo Forward Support Company, 2nd Battalion, 9th Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. Specifically, he was tasked to analyze and report any evidence of dereliction of duty, wrongful disposition or suffering the loss of government and military property, or any other willful misconduct. He was directed to adhere to AR 735-5 with specific regard to assessment of financial liability against any person or persons found to be negligent and the proximate cause of loss. a. In his Findings and Discussion the IO noted: (1) The applicant was capable of maintaining supervision of the property in his care, and this includes not merely all physically available property but the accounting process itself, which necessarily includes the missing property identified as part of his change of command inventories with the previous commander. While the applicant cannot logically be the proximate cause of loss (loss which occurred before he took command cannot possibly have been caused by him or through any action for which he is responsible), his inaction is the primary moving cause of the loss per AR 735-5, page 166, and paragraph 13-29(c). The preponderance of evidence suggests that even though the property in question was physically lost before the applicant took command, he failed to appropriately account for that same property. (2) The applicant failed to enforce all accounting requirements by not following-up on his attempt to order identified shortages early and throughout his command, and through validated annexes. Additionally, he failed in his command responsibility by not executing a proper FLIPL or other Commander's Inquiry into the missing equipment. (3) The applicant did not uniformly attempt to acquire replacements for all the property in question. The applicant failed to officially annotate the shortages on any Cyclic Inventory during his tenure. (4) He found no evidence of any ordering to rectify the shortages in question by the previous commander. Given the volume and spread of shortages identified it is reasonably apparent that these items were lost over a period of several years, making a determination of original prime proximate cause against any individual, currently in the unit or in the unit during the applicant's command, illogical, impossible to prove, and very highly unlikely. (5) The applicant failed in his overall command responsibility to reacquire control of the missing property through the appropriate Army actions and methods of official documentation, such as a FLIPL, and hence must be acknowledged as the agent of culpable conduct in this specific regard. (6) The applicant managed to locate over $200,000 of property originally identified as missing. Unfortunately, he made purchases of $72,000 against property identified as missing without having executed the proper measures to account for the missing property IAW Army regulation and local policy. However, the IO found that it is reasonable to believe that the applicant did this through a lack of understanding of the Army system, and in no way did he intentionally perform this in a willfully negligent manner. b. The IO recommended: (1) That the investigation be closed and that the applicant be formally counseled by means of a Letter of Reprimand or other appropriate memorandum for apparent dereliction of duty, failure to obey an order or regulation, and suffering the wrongful disposition of Government property. (2) That no financial liability be found against the applicant. He cannot logically be the prime proximate cause of loss (loss which occurred before he took command cannot possibly have been caused by him or through any action for which he is responsible); however, his inaction ex post facto becomes the primary moving cause of the loss. Nonetheless, no new loss has been identified, and the applicant undertook the steps he believed to be necessary and regulated, and with laudable and honorable intent, to account for and then reacquire actual shortages demonstrated to have occurred prior to his command. There is no evidence of actual loss of government property since the applicant took command. The loss of accountability of the property in question is shown to have occurred over a period of several years and multiple commands. 3. A 13 February 2012 memorandum shows: a. The Brigade Staff Judge Advocate completed a legal review of the AR 15-6 investigation and recommended approval of the findings and recommendations of the IO with exception and that financial liability be assessed against the applicant for the following reasons: (1) Command, direct, and supervisory responsibilities for the missing military property were held by the applicant as the commander and PHRH for the unit. (2) At the time of his outgoing change of command inventory certain military property on the applicant's PHR could not be located. There is no record of any sub-hand receipt holders for the missing items. The applicant's inability to produce the missing items or present valid sub-hand receipts establishes his negligence and culpability for the loss of accountability of military property. (3) The applicant's negligence and culpability were the proximate cause of the loss of accountability of military property. The Army considers loss of accountability verified by a FLIPL as a loss of property under AR 735-5. (4) When the applicant took command in September 2012, a FLIPL accounted for all missing military property under the former outgoing commander's time in command. This previous FLIPL establishes that the applicant had all items accounted for when he signed as the PHRH. (5) It is de facto negligence if the applicant knew about missing military property and did not act according to AR 735-5. If the applicant did not initiate a FLIPL or issue statements of charges to account for the known shortages, he assumed all accountability issues that may arise later. (6) Since the proximate cause of the loss of accountability of military property was the applicant's negligence, he should be charged one month's pay since the loss exceeds his month's base pay. b. Depreciation normally needs to be applied; however, since the amount of the loss exceeds the one month base pay of the applicant, depreciation calculations are unnecessary. c. In accordance with AR 735-5, paragraph 13-40, the approving authority is neither bound nor limited by the findings and recommendations of the IO and the appointing authority. The approving authority may: (1) Find the investigation incomplete and return it to the IO for further investigation. (2) Approve the recommendations of the IO and direct relief for the individual involved. (3) Disapprove the recommendations by exception and assess financial liability against the individual involved. Notify the individual who will be held financially liable IAW AR 735-5. If rebuttal matters are submitted, consider them before finalizing and processing through finance. The individual will need to be re-notified of the final decision. 4. A DD Form 200 shows FLIPL #WA---A-12-2-9-0--3 was initiated on 5 January 2012. a. The FLIPL shows the loss of government property of a total cost of $72,163.60 was discovered on 7 December 2011. Block 9 (Circumstances under Which Property was Lost): (1) The primary cause of loss of accountability, not property loss, was due to a misunderstanding of what constitutes a valid shortage listing. When the applicant took command of the unit from CPT Y--- C--- in September 2012, he inherited approximately $450,000 in shortages, as stated by the 15-6 conducted by MAJ R------ H---. Prior to CPT C--- the company had been maintaining historical records of valid shortages on a Component Shortage Report. The applicant believed this was acceptable because the Property Book Office (PBO), S-4, and the 15-6 officer all took the component listing as a valid document for determining the shortages. The PBO and S-4 accepted the applicant's component listing from the change of command without a FLIPL or statement of charges being presented. If the applicant had known that those shortages ($450,000) would not have been treated as valid, then he would have initiated a change of command FLIPL. (2) The Component Shortage Report from the applicant's change of command was removed from the supply room by the AR 15-6 officer in order to conduct his investigation, but was not returned when the FLIPL was completed 8 months after it was initiated. The applicant immediately initiated a 100% property inventory. That inventory revealed $385,000 worth of shortages. The applicant presented the result to his Battalion Executive Officer and Battalion S-4 noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC). He was told that since the previous FLIPL revealed $450,000 and the AR 15-6 IO never returned the Component Shortage Report from the change of command, that the Component Shortage Report from the 100% inventory would be accepted. The applicant believed that his shortages were validated. During the change of command out-brief with COL D-------, it was discovered that the Component Shortage Report did not constitute a valid annex and that a FLIPL would have to be initiated to properly account for the remaining $72,163.60 in missing equipment. b. The Responsible Officer indicated "No negligence, abuse, or wrong doing suspected." c. The Appointing Authority recommended approval and commented, "Sir, recommend one month base pay charge prorated over 12 months. However, I do not believe any willful misconduct occurred." d. The Approval Authority approved the FLIPL and indicated that the applicant is financially liable for one month's base pay. 5. In a 23 March 2012 memorandum, CPT S. Wesley G-----, the applicant's legal assistance attorney, provided support to the applicant's request for reconsideration of the assessment of financial liability. In the memorandum he states: a. When the applicant took command, nearly $450,000 of property was not accounted for by the previous commander. During his command, the applicant recovered a large majority of that property with cyclic inventories and good property management. b. When new losses were identified during his command, he took the appropriate, reasonable and prudent measures, per the IO's report. c. The evidence shows that liability is not allowed under AR 735-5. That regulation requires proving the applicant proximately caused the loss of property, and the evidence does not support such a conclusion. The property was lost before the applicant took command, and he confirmed this in a thorough inventory when he took command. 6. In his 19 June 2012 memorandum COL D--------, the FLIPL approving authority, states he reviewed the request for reconsideration and still found the applicant financially liable for the missing property because: a. The applicant knew military property was missing or appeared to be missing during his command. Even if the losses occurred in a previous command, this fact does not prohibit the assessment of liability on the last person on the audit trail who took responsibility for the military property as the PHRH. b. Simply recording shortages on a document is not enough to satisfy the regulatory duty to account for missing items or items that appear to be missing. There has to be follow-up and the applicant failed to take appropriate action. He should have included all missing, or appear to be missing, items on the FLIPL. c. When the applicant signed for his unit's property, he became responsible and became part of the unbroken audit chain. When he took command he became the PHRH for all things, including those that were represented to him to be missing. The fact that certain individuals believe that the "loss" took place in the past does not break the audit chain. The only way the applicant could have avoided financial liability was to confirm that all missing items represented to him during his in-coming change of command inventory were properly accounted for in the previous FLIPL. If he had done this and still found items missing during the beginning of his command period, he should have promptly initiated a FLIPL and allowed the investigative process to determine who is liable. The applicant failed to do this. 7. In a 25 September 2012 memorandum, the 2nd Infantry Division Deputy Commander denied the applicant's request for reconsideration of financial liability. 8. On 23 July 2012, the Deputy Director of Operations, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), informed the applicant that collection of the debt of $4,951.00 would be suspended pending the decision on his appeal. An apology was extended for the poor customer service the applicant experienced as a result of the matter. 9. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Director of Supply, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G4 (ODSC G4) (Logistics), Washington, DC. The opining official states that after a thorough review, the ODCS G4 concludes that the FLIPL was conducted IAW DA Pamphlet 735-5 (Financial Liability Officer’s Guide) and the recommendation to hold the applicant liable should be upheld. In accordance with AR 735-5, paragraph 2-8, the applicant did not fulfill his command responsibility of ensuring proper care, custody, safekeeping, and disposition of the equipment noted. 10. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for his rebuttal comments. 11. In his 24 March 2014 memorandum the applicant stated, "The 20 Feb Memorandum does not state an adequate legal or factual basis for denying my petition." He further stated, "The Memorandum is a cursory 3 paragraph statement that contains no analysis or discussion of the relevant facts, and the FLIPL materials do not support ODCS G-4's conclusions." He further indicated that: a. The commander violated AR 735-5, paragraph 13-34 by denying him his right to request reconsideration. b. The IO violated AR 735-5, paragraph 13-31d by failing to interview the supply sergeant, an important witness who was the custodian of the sub-hand receipts. c. The commander violated AR 735-5, paragraph 14-42b by initiating a pay deduction before he was given the opportunity to respond and before his appeal was adjudicated. This decision was reversed by DFAS. d. The loss was not properly assessed because depreciation calculations were never conducted. There are no exceptions to this listed in AR 735-5. e. The unit violated the time requirements of AR 735-5, paragraph 13-42, which states investigations should be completed in 75 days. The FLIPL took 170 days to complete. This delay in conjunction with the high personnel turnover in Korea hindered his ability to collect evidence to enhance his appeal. f. COL D------- did not fulfill his responsibility of explaining why he made a finding of financial liability against the applicant after the IO recommended no liability. g. The FLIPL materials do not support the ODCS G-4 conclusion that he violated his duty of command responsibility. This is the first time in the process that he had been accused of failing in his command responsibility. At no point did the IO, appointing authority, approving authority, or appeal authority allege he failed to exercise command responsibility. h. The PBO is the subject matter expert designated to find issues in property accountability. The PBO certified that the applicant had 100% accountability at the beginning and the end of his command. i. When the loss in question was discovered he initiated a FLIPL in accordance with AR 735-5 which fulfilled his duty as commander. It is clear from the evidence that the G-4's conclusion and unsubstantiated claim have no merit. j. In summary, if the Board denies his petition, the Board is saying that it is acceptable to take a month's pay from a Soldier while: (1) Skipping an important part of the appeal process by denying him his right to reconsideration; (2) Conducting a deficient investigation by refusing to interview an important witness who would have exonerated the Soldier; and (3) Ignoring important evidence (sub-hand receipts) that exonerate him and show the theory of liability (failure to sub-hand receipt the property) has no basis in fact, among other violations of AR 735-5. Doing so would be factually and legally erroneous, as well as a violation of his basic due process rights. Accordingly, he respectfully requests that the Board reject the recommendation contained in ODCS G-4's memorandum and grant his petition. 12. AR 735-5 prescribes the basic policies and procedures in accounting for Army property and sets the requirements for formal property accounting within the Army, which includes but is not limited to defining the CSDP, its intent, and implementing procedures. It specifies that commanders at all levels will ensure compliance with all policies and procedures prescribed by this regulation that apply at their level of command. 13. AR 735-5 defines the following terms: a. Negligence – The failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under similar circumstances. An act or omission that a reasonably prudent person would not have committed, or omitted, under similar circumstances and which is the proximate cause of the loss of, damage to, or destruction of Government property. Failure to comply with existing laws, regulations, and/or procedures may be considered as evidence of negligence. b. Proximate Cause – The cause, which in a natural and continuous sequence of events unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss or damage. Without this cause, the loss or damage would not have occurred. It is further defined as the primary moving cause, or the predominant cause, from which the loss or damage followed as a natural, direct, and immediate consequence. 14. Chapter 13 of AR 735-5 states that the purpose of a financial liability investigation of property loss documents the circumstances concerning the loss or damage of Government property and serves as, or supports, a voucher for adjusting the property from accountable records. It also documents a charge of financial liability assessed against an individual or entity, or provides for the relief from financial liability. Chapter 13 also states: a. A financial liability officer’s responsibility is to determine the cause and value of the loss or damage of Government property listed on the DD Form 200, and to determine if assessment of financial liability is warranted. That determination must be determined from the facts developed during a thorough and impartial investigation. However, before beginning the investigation the financial liability officer must have an understanding of the terms "responsibility, culpability, proximate cause, and loss"; each term impacts upon a determination of financial liability. Individuals may be held financially liable for the loss or damage of Government property if they were negligent or have committed willful misconduct, and their negligence or willful misconduct is the proximate cause of that loss or damage. (1) Responsibility. General responsibility: The type of responsibility a person has for property determines the obligations incurred by that individual for the property. DA Pam 735–5 presents specific issues the financial liability officer must consider before recommending financial liability. There are five types of responsibility: Command, Supervisory, Direct, Personal, and Custodial. (2) Command responsibility. The obligation of a commander to ensure all Government property within their command is properly used and cared for, and that proper custody, accountability, safekeeping, and disposition of Government property are provided. Command responsibility is inherent in command and cannot be delegated. It is evidenced by assignment to command at any level and includes the following: (a) Ensuring the security of all property within the command, whether in use or in storage. (b) Observing subordinates to ensure their activities contribute to the proper custody, care, use, accountability, safekeeping, and disposition of all property within the command. (c) Enforcing all security, safety, and accounting requirements. (d) Taking administrative or disciplinary action when necessary. (3) Culpability: Before a person can be held financially liable, the facts must show that they, through negligence or willful misconduct, violated a particular responsibility or duty involving the property. Simple negligence is the absence of due care, by an act or omission of a person which lacks that degree of care for the property that a reasonably prudent person would have taken under similar circumstances, to avoid the loss or damage of Government property. Gross negligence is an extreme departure from due care resulting from an act or omission of a person accountable or responsible for Government property which falls far short of that degree of care for the property that a reasonably prudent person would have taken under similar circumstances. It is accompanied by a reckless, deliberate, or wanton disregard for the foreseeable loss or damage to the property. Whether a person’s acts or omissions constitute negligence depends on the circumstances of each case. Negligence under some circumstances may not reflect negligence under other circumstances. Therefore, fully consider the following factors, as a minimum, when determining the reasonableness of a person’s conduct: the person’s age, experience, physical condition, and special qualifications; the type of responsibility the person had toward the property; the type and nature of the property; the nature, complexity, level of danger, or urgency of the activity ongoing at the time of the loss or damage of the property; the adequacy of supervisory measures or guidance for property control; the feasibility of maintaining close supervision over the property, given the nature and complexity of the organization or activity supervised; and/or the extent supervision could influence the situation considering pressing duties or lack of qualified assistants. Willful misconduct is any intentional wrongful or unlawful act or omission relating to Government property. (4) Proximate Cause: Before holding a person financially liable for a loss to the Government, the facts must clearly show that the person’s conduct was the “proximate” cause of the loss or damage. That is, the person’s acts or omissions were the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss or damage, and without which the loss/damage would not have occurred. (5) Loss: Before holding a person financially liable for a loss to the Government, the facts must clearly show that the person’s conduct was the "proximate" cause of the loss or damage. That is, the person’s acts or omissions were the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produced the loss or damage, and without which the loss or damage would not have occurred. a. Paragraph 13-7 provides that the initiator of a DD Form 200 (FLIPL) will normally be the hand receipt holder, unit commander or agency head, the accountable officer, or the individual with the most knowledge of the incident. b. Paragraph 13-8 provides that the Active Army will initiate and present financial liability investigations of property loss to the appointing authority or approving authority as appropriate not later than 15 calendar days after the date of discovering the discrepancy. c. Paragraph 13-43 provides that when an individual has been notified that financial liability has been approved, the individual should, with the advice of legal counsel, thoroughly review the financial liability investigation of property loss packet provided, then decide whether or not request reconsideration. * Request reconsideration of the approving authority's decision * Submit requests for reconsideration by memorandum through his or his immediate commander to the approving authority * Submit requests for reconsideration only on the basis of legal error d. Paragraph 13-51 provides that the term "request for reconsideration" refers to an application to the appeal authority challenging the decision of the approving authority in assessing financial liability. Requests for reconsideration will be submitted to the approving authority that acted on the financial liability investigation of property loss. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends he is not liable for the loss of government property in the FLIPL #WA---A-12-2-9-0--3 in the amount of $4,951.80. 2. The ABCMR is not an investigate agency. Furthermore, absent the complete facts and circumstances, the ABCMR does not normally reexamine issues of financial liability. This is the IO's and Approving Authority's function and it will not be upset by the ABCMR unless the determination is unsupported by the evidence. The applicant in this case was advised of the loss and submitted a rebuttal. His rebuttal was considered and the Approving Authority concluded he was financially liable. 3. The Director of Supply, ODCS G4, stated that after a thorough review the ODCS G4 concluded that the FLIPL in question was conducted IAW AR 735-5 and the recommendation that the applicant be held liable should be upheld. 4. The applicant states that "All property identified as missing on this FLIPL was sub-hand receipted down to officers or non-commissioned officers under my command." He states in his rebuttal to the G4 advisory opinion that when the loss in question was discovered he initiated a FLIPL in accordance with AR 735-5 which fulfilled his duty as commander. 5. Had the applicant, in fact, done his job properly the missing property would have been identified earlier; thereby, increasing the probability that the individuals who actually lost the items could have been held accountable. 6. The applicant's evidence has been reviewed and is insufficient to justify granting his request. 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 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) AR20120005226 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130019456 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1