IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140006073 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 a formal hearing and reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his award of the Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor. 2. The applicant states he is aware that he had 1 year from the 7 June 2012 decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in his case to submit his request for reconsideration. a. He states the Fiscal Year 2002 (FY02) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) required the review of Jewish American and Hispanic American war veterans' records who served during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, and who were awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross. The review was to ensure that those deserving the Medal of Honor were not denied the award because of prejudice. The records of several veterans of ethnicities that were not included in the required review were identified and the NDAA was amended to allow their consideration. b. On 18 March 2014, the President of the United States awarded 24 Army veterans the Medal of Honor. c. He is Chamorro from Guam and also of Hispanic descent. He suffered prejudice throughout his military career. In 1969, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross instead of the Medal of Honor for which he had been recommended. The award citation was a watered-down version of the actual events. At that time, he was aware of the unspoken reasons for this as minorities learned early on to accept injustice in silence and obscurity. d. He summarizes events and statements that were provided in his original application to the ABCMR concerning his heroic acts on 22 and 23 February 1969 in Vietnam, the award recommendation process, and the decision to award him the Distinguished Service Cross. e. He states the Military Awards Board decided his case "without benefit of oral testimony from a single witness, decided the injustice would stand, and declined [his request for] upgrade to the Medal of Honor." A telephone call to each of the three witnesses would have proven invaluable to the review process. f. He concludes by stating that the FY02 NDAA authorizes the review of his records to ensure he was not denied the Medal of Honor because of prejudice. As such, he requests a formal hearing with personal appearance before the ABCMR, along with the testimony of Lieutenant General (LTG) G____ A. S____, U.S. Army (Retired); Captain G____ D____; and Sergeant G____ B____. 3. The applicant provides copies of the same documents he submitted with his original application and also provides the following new evidence: * letter from the Honorable E____ B____ C____, Governor of Guam * letter from Colonel (COL) J____ S. S____, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps (Retired) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20110016882 on 7 June 2012. 2. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 4 January 1962. Through an enlistment in the Regular Army and a series of reenlistments, he continued to serve on active duty until he retired on 31 January 1988 in the rank/grade of command sergeant major/E-9. 3. He deployed overseas to the Republic of Vietnam on 28 December 1968 in the rank of staff sergeant/E-6 and he was assigned to the 2nd Platoon, Company A, 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). 4. Headquarters, 1st Cavalry Division, General Orders Number 2730, dated 6 March 1969, awarded the applicant the Silver Star for gallantry in action on 23 February 1969 in the Republic of Vietnam, apparently as an interim award. (The citation published in the orders appears in its entirety in the original Record of Proceedings.) 5. LTG (then Lieutenant Colonel (LTC)) G____ A. S____ assumed command of the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry, on an unspecified date in March 1969. 6. Headquarters, U.S. Army Vietnam (USARV), General Orders Number 1730, dated 14 May 1969, awarded the applicant the Distinguished Service Cross for extraordinary heroism on 23 February 1969 in the Republic of Vietnam. (The citation published in the orders appears in its entirety in the original Record of Proceedings.) 7. The applicant's military personnel records contain six DD Forms 214 (Report of Transfer or Discharge/Report of Separation from Active Duty/Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) covering the period of his active duty service from 4 January 1962 through 31 January 1988. a. The DD Form 214 covering the period of service from 21 October 1966 through 25 July 1972 shows award of the Distinguished Service Cross. b. The three DD Forms 214 covering the periods of service from 26 July 1972 through 6 July 1975, 7 July 1975 through 10 April 1978, and 7 July 1975 through 31 January 1988 (overlapping period) show award of the Distinguished Service Cross and the Silver Star. 8. A review of the applicant's military personnel records failed to reveal evidence that the orders awarding the applicant the Silver Star were rescinded. 9. A review of the Awards and Decorations Computer-Assisted Retrieval System, an index of general orders issued during the Vietnam era between 1965 and 1973 maintained by the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Awards and Decorations Branch, failed to reveal a copy of orders showing the applicant’s Silver Star was rescinded. 10. Records maintained by the HRC Awards and Decorations Branch show a U.S. Senator referred a recommendation to the Department of the Army for an upgrade of the applicant's Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor on 10 January 2001. The recommendation packet included a summary of events, proposed award citation, narrative, diagram of the site of the action with a sequence of events, and certificates consisting of questions answered by the applicant and LTG G____ A. S____. 11. On 19 March 2001, the Chief, Military Awards Branch, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (TAPC) (now known as HRC), informed a Member of Congress that the Army Decorations Board had determined the degree of action and service rendered by the applicant did not meet the criteria for the Medal of Honor and that the TAPC Commanding General (CG), acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, disapproved award of the Medal of Honor, thereby affirming that the previously-awarded Distinguished Service Cross was the appropriate award for his actions. 12. On 20 June 2011, the Chief, Awards and Decorations Branch, HRC, informed a Member of Congress that under Department of Defense and Army policy, a one-time reconsideration of a previously-approved award is conclusive and should the applicant feel the previously-rendered decision was unfair or unjust, he could appeal to the ABCMR. 13. On 18 March 2014, the President of the United States awarded 24 Army veterans the Medal of Honor who had been previously recognized with the Distinguished Service Cross. The applicant was not one of the 24 Army veterans who were recognized. 14. The submissions in the original application, including the recommendation for award of the Medal of Honor with a proposed citation, narrative, summary of events, and diagram; six letters of support; and the four certificates (questions and answers) submitted by LTG (Retired) G____ A. S____, former First Lieutenant (1LT) G____ D____, former Specialist Four (SP4) G____ B____, and the applicant were all summarized and previously considered in the original Record of Proceedings of this case. 15. The applicant provided the following new evidence in support of his request for reconsideration of his application. a. A letter from the Honorable E____ B____ C____, Governor of Guam, to the Honorable C____ H____, Secretary of Defense, dated 10 April 2014, states he unequivocally supports and strongly endorses the petition to have the applicant's Distinguished Service Cross upgraded to the Medal of Honor for his exceptional valorous acts on 22 and 23 February 1969 during the Vietnam War. He states the original award recommendation was downgraded for unspecified reasons and that LTG S____ feels "a grave injustice had been done to a soldier who risked his life so that others may live." b. A letter from COL (Retired) J____ S. S____, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps, to the ABCMR, dated 30 March 2014, references the Medal of Honor review for Jewish American and Hispanic American war veterans. He states he assumes the applicant's case was one of the 6,000 Distinguished Service Cross recipients recently reviewed as part of the Congressional mandate "to correct a historic injustice," but was inexplicably denied. Should that be the case, the injustice and the unfairness continues and illustrates the inconsistencies in the Medal of Honor process. (1) He notes the ABCMR failed to contact any of the four key living witnesses (LTG G____ R. S____ (Retired), Mr. G____ D____, Mr. G____ B____, and the applicant) who provided statements in the original request to the Board. He offers information that the witnesses would have provided to the board by offering quotes from each of the individual's certificates (statements). (2) He also notes the Board indicated available records do not include official documentation of Mr. G____ B____'s military service and the applicant's Official Military Personnel File is void of documentation showing he was recommended for award of the Medal of Honor. He concludes that these two findings by the Board support LTG S____'s claim regarding the battalion's poor administrative records maintenance. (3) He offers the citations of four Army Vietnam veterans whose awards of the Distinguished Service Cross were upgraded to the Medal of Honor under the Congressional mandate. He opines that an examination of the citations "are hauntingly similar with [Applicant's] in that each of the serviceman [sic] valiantly displayed courage, determination, and total disregard of life while displaying extreme bravery in battles that lasted for hours." (4) He adds the "incontestable written testimonies provided by Lt. Gen. G____ S____ USA (Ret), Mr. G____ D____, Mr. G____ B____, and [Applicant] are clearly similar to the recent MOH Vietnam recipients" and that the applicant "served valiantly in combat even with the additive stresses of racial prejudices or stigmatization because of race." (5) He concludes that the documents provided support award of the Medal of Honor to the applicant. 16. In the processing of this case, the HRC Awards and Decorations Branch was asked to verify specific information relevant to the applicant's eligibility/ consideration for upgrade of the Distinguished Service Cross under the FY02 NDAA review regarding award of the Medal of Honor to certain Jewish American and Hispanic American war veterans. a. The Adjutant General of the Army indicated that only a limited amount of information pertaining to the review could be provided. However, he did confirm that the applicant's record was not included in the special review that was mandated under section 522 of the FY02 NDAA. He noted the applicant's records classify him as a Pacific Islander, making him ineligible for this particular review. He did not qualify under the FY02 NDAA; therefore, his records were not reviewed by the Army Decorations Board. b. He stated the Army Decorations Board reviewed the applicant's Distinguished Service Cross award documents in 2001, along with the new materials that were provided, and determined the degree of action and service rendered did not meet the extraordinary heroism required for the proposed award of the Medal of Honor. 17. The applicant was provided a copy of the HRC advisory opinion to allow him an opportunity to comment. On 7 June 2014, he provided a response. a. He stated that his race is listed as Pacific Islander in his records due to the fact that his family resided in Guam. However, his parents and grandparents are Spanish and his ethnicity is Hispanic. b. He points out that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Census Bureau define race and ethnicity as self-identification data items in which residents choose the race with which they most closely identify and indicate whether they are of Hispanic or Latino origin. c. Since 1997, OMB has required Federal agencies to use five race categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. There are an additional two categories for data on ethnicity: "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino." OMB defines Hispanic or Latino as "a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race [applicant's emphasis]." He provides an extract of the Department of Defense 2011 Demographics – Profile of the Military Community, updated November 2012, pertaining to race/ethnicity that illustrates the distribution of active duty Soldiers and officers. d. He recaps The Adjutant General of the Army's assertion that his records classify him as a Pacific Islander, thereby rendering his records ineligible from the mandated review. The applicant questions if this rationale would be applied to the other four races as well, thereby excluding Hispanics from those races also, or whether this is "a unilateral exclusion reserved only for Hispanics from the Pacific Islands." He states the intent of the FY02 NDAA was to address prejudice and injustice from the past rather than being used to perpetuate it further. e. He restates that he is Hispanic, he endured prejudice throughout his military career, and he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross in 1969 rather than the Medal of Honor for which he had been recommended. f. He concludes by stating three individuals have provided statements regarding his actions and are prepared to offer relevant credible testimony in a formal hearing. However, at no time have any of the witnesses ever been contacted during the review process. 18. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3741 (The Medal of Honor: Award), was established by Joint Resolution of Congress on 12 July 1862 (amended by acts on 9 July 1918 and 25 July 1963). The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President in the name of Congress to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States, while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. 19. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3754 states the President may delegate his authority to award the Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, and Distinguished Service Medal to a commanding general of a separate army or higher unit in the field. 20. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. Chapter 3 (U.S. Army Individual Decorations), paragraph 3-1 (Intent), states U.S. Army military decorations are awarded in recognition of heroism, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service. It also states the decision to award an individual a decoration and the decision as to which award is appropriate are both subjective decisions made by the commander having award approval authority. (1) The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguishes himself or herself by extraordinary heroism while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States not justifying award of the Medal of Honor. The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades. (2) The Silver Star is awarded for gallantry in action against the enemy. The required gallantry (spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage) must have been performed with marked distinction. b. Chapter 1 (Introduction), paragraph 1-19 (Duplication of Awards), provides that only one decoration will be awarded to an individual or unit for the same act, achievement, or period of meritorious service. c. The Glossary, section II (Terms), provides the following definitions: (1) Above and Beyond the Call of Duty – Exercise of a voluntary course of action the omission of which would not justly subject the individual to censure for failure in the performance of duty. It usually includes the acceptance of existing danger or extraordinary responsibilities with praiseworthy fortitude and exemplary courage. In its highest degrees it involves the voluntary acceptance of additional danger and risk of life. (2) Extraordinary Heroism – Act or acts of heroism or gallantry involving the risk of life – minimum level of valorous performance in combat consistent with a recommendation for the Distinguished Service Cross. (3) Gallantry in Action – Spirited and conspicuous acts of heroism and courage – minimum level of valorous performance in combat consistent with a recommendation for the Silver Star. (4) Heroism – Extreme courage demonstrated in attaining a noble end. 21. Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Awards), in effect at the time, prescribed Department of the Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual military awards. a. Paragraph 4 (By Whom Awarded – Wartime Criteria) provided that award of the Medal of Honor was made only by the President. Awards of other decorations were made by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Army. When wartime criteria applied, authority to award decorations was automatically delegated as follows: the Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Soldier's Medal, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, and Army Commendation Medal could be awarded to members of the Armed Forces of the United States by the senior Army commander of any separate force or by subordinate commanders to whom he may delegate this authority, provided that the authority would not be delegated to any commander below the grade of major general, except to a brigadier general commanding a tactical unit and occupying the position vacancy of a major general. b. Paragraph 6 (Recommendation for Awards) provided that processing of a recommendation for the Medal of Honor would not be interrupted prior to its referral to Headquarters, Department of the Army. c. Paragraph 7 (Interim Awards and Awards of a Lesser Decoration) specified in: (1) subparagraph a, to insure that a deserving act, achievement, or service received recognition, the appropriate authority should promptly award a suitable lesser military decoration pending final action on a recommendation for a higher award. If the higher award is approved, the interim award is rescinded and the decoration returned by the recipient, unless the higher award is approved posthumously in which case the next of kin will be permitted to retain both awards; and (2) subparagraph b, the authority taking final action could award the decoration recommended, award a lesser decoration (or consider the interim award as adequate recognition), or, in the absence of an interim award, disapprove award of any decoration. 22. Headquarters, USARV Regulation 672-1 (Decorations and Awards), in effect at the time, prescribed policies, responsibilities, and criteria for awards in order to ensure prompt and proper recognition of individuals. a. It contained several appendices outlining the criteria for award of individual decorations, delegation of awards authority, and procedures for preparing and submitting recommendations. It also contained numerous annexes providing instructions for preparation of the DA Form 638 (Recommendation for Award) and USARV Form 157-R (Recommendation for Decoration for Valor or Merit), sample citations, and a summary of recommendation format for a Medal of Honor recommendation (annex E). b. In accordance with Army Regulation 672-5-1, the Deputy CG, USARV, was authorized to approve award of the Distinguished Service Cross. CG's of divisions were delegated authority to approve award of the Silver Star. 23. Public Law 104-106, enacted 10 February 1996, promulgated the FY96 NDAA that included section 526 (Procedure for Consideration of Military Decorations Not Previously Submitted in Timely Fashion). It incorporated the legal authority for consideration of proposals for decorations not previously submitted in a timely fashion into Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1130. Upon the request of a Member of Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the award of or upgrading of a decoration. Based upon such review, the Secretary shall determine the merits of approving the award. 24. Public Law 107-107, enacted 28 December 2001, promulgated the FY02 NDAA that included section 522 (Review Regarding Award of Medal of Honor to Certain Jewish American and Hispanic American War Veterans). a. Review Required: The Secretary of each Military Department shall review the service records of each Jewish American war veteran or Hispanic American war veteran described in subsection b to determine whether that veteran should be awarded the Medal of Honor. b. Covered Jewish-American War Veterans and Hispanic American War Veterans: The Jewish American war veterans and Hispanic American war veterans whose service records are to be reviewed under subsection a are the following: (1) any Jewish American war veteran or Hispanic American war veteran who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross before the date of the enactment of this act; and (2) any other Jewish American war veteran or Hispanic American war veteran whose name is submitted to the Secretary concerned for such purpose before the end of the 1 year beginning on the date of the enactment of this act. c. Consultations: In carrying out the review under subsection a, the Secretary of each Military Department shall consult with the Jewish war veterans of the United States of America and with such other veterans service organizations as the Secretary considers appropriate. d. Recommendation Based on Review: If the Secretary concerned determines, based upon the review under subsection a of the service records of any Jewish American war veteran or Hispanic American war veteran, that the award of the Medal of Honor to that veteran is warranted, the Secretary shall submit to the President a recommendation that the President award the Medal of Honor to that veteran. e. Authority to Award Medal of Honor: A Medal of Honor may be awarded to a Jewish American war veteran or Hispanic American war veteran in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary concerned under subsection d. f. Waiver of Time Limits: Any award of the Medal of Honor may be made under subsection e without regard to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3744, 6248, or 8744, as applicable, and any regulation or other administrative restriction on the time for awarding the Medal of Honor or of awarding of the Medal of Honor for service for which a Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, or Air Force Cross has been awarded. g. Definition: For the purpose of this section, the terms Jewish American war veteran and Hispanic American war veteran mean any person who served in the Armed Forces during World War II or a later period of war and who identified himself or herself as Jewish or Hispanic on his or her military personnel records. 25. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), the regulation under which this Board operates, provides that a panel consisting of at least three ABCMR members will consider each application that is properly brought before it. This regulation also provides that a formal hearing may be granted whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. On or about 18 March 2014, the applicant learned that the President of the United States awarded 24 Army veterans the Medal of Honor based on section 522 of the FY02 NDAA that mandated the review of their awards of the Distinguished Service Cross. Thus, given the circumstances surrounding the applicant's case, his request for reconsideration in this instance is considered timely. 2. The applicant's request for a formal hearing and reconsideration of his request for an upgrade of his award of the Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor was carefully considered. 3. The panel members of the ABCMR conducted a review of the detailed application submitted and found it to be well-organized, thoroughly documented, and easily understood. This review included the information and actions taken on the applicant's previous application to the ABCMR. The new evidence provided indicates the witnesses will offer information that is contained in their statements previously considered by the Board. Thus, it is concluded that the application submitted contains all the necessary information the ABCMR panel members need to consider the merits of the case. Since there appears to be no additional substantive information that can be offered at a formal hearing that is not contained in the application, a formal hearing is not necessary. 4. The evidence of record shows the original application was thoroughly reviewed by the ABCMR, including the statements of the three witnesses and the applicant. a. The two letters provided as new evidence in support of the applicant's request for reconsideration do not offer eyewitness or first-hand accounts of the events of 22-23 February 1969 that are under review and for which the applicant was recognized with award of the Distinguished Service Cross. b. The Board acknowledges that it noted in its original consideration of this case "the available records do not include official documentation of Mr. (then SP4) B____'s military service." However, the evidence of record shows his statement was considered and, in fact, a full one-page summary of his statement appears in the Record of Proceedings. Thus, it is clear that the Board placed a great deal of weight on Mr. B____'s statement concerning the matter under review. The fact that his military service record was not available was inconsequential. 5. The evidence of record shows USARV Regulation 672-1 provided detailed information regarding delegation of awards authority and the procedures for preparing and submitting award recommendations, including the Medal of Honor. a. Orders were issued by the 1st Cavalry Division on 6 March 1969 awarding the applicant the Silver Star, 11 days after his heroic acts on 23 February 1969. b. The evidence of record shows that LTG (then LTC) S____ assumed command of the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry, sometime in March 1969, which was after the action under review. Based on the date the applicant was awarded the Silver Star (i.e., on 6 March 1969), it is reasonable to conclude that he assumed command of the battalion after the award recommendation had already been prepared and submitted by the battalion to the next higher headquarters. c. Orders were issued by USARV on 14 May 1969 awarding the applicant the Distinguished Service Cross, 80 days after his heroic acts on 23 February 1969. d. Thus, the evidence of record does not support the contention that "the unit was challenged with the 'know how' on the procedures for submitting such an award." In addition, suggestions about "the battalion's administrative difficulties" appear to be unfounded with respect to the applicant's award recommendation. 6. The contention that the applicant was recommended for award of the Medal of Honor is acknowledged. a. The award approval authority determined the applicant's heroic acts were so extraordinary and so noteworthy as to warrant award of the Distinguished Service Cross. b. A request to upgrade the applicant's Distinguished Service Cross was considered by the Army Decorations Board in March 2001 and most recently by the ABCMR on 7 June 2012. In both instances, the requests were reviewed and denied. 8. For the mandated review under section 522 of the FY02 NDAA, a Hispanic American war veteran is defined as any person who served in the Armed Forces during World War II or a later period of war who identified himself as Hispanic on his military personnel records. a. The evidence of record shows the applicant's military records classify him as a Pacific Islander. b. The applicant failed to provide any documentation showing a genealogical link or reference to Hispanic ethnicity in his military service records or that he ever contested his classification as a Pacific Islander vice Hispanic. c. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that the applicant did not qualify under the FY02 NDAA and, therefore, his record was ineligible for the review. 9. The evidence provided in support of this request for reconsideration offers no new substantive evidence that merits a change to the original decision rendered by the Board in ABCMR Docket Number AR20110016882, dated 7 June 2012. 10. The applicant should also be aware that this Board does not have the legal authority to upgrade a Distinguished Service Cross to the Medal of Honor. If this Board found that the applicant’s contentions had merit the only correction that could be made would be to refer his case back to the Army Decorations Board. 11. In view of all of the foregoing evidence, there is an insufficient basis to refer the applicant's request to the Army Decorations Board for another consideration to upgrade his Distinguished Service Cross. 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110016882, dated 7 June 2012. ____________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) AR20140006073 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140006073 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1