BOARD DATE: 16 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004189 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ ___x_____ __x___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 16 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004189 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. BOARD DATE: 16 June 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150004189 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect: a. Correction of his honorable discharge from the Full-Time National Guard Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program, changing it to a medical discharge. With this correction, he requests any back pay due. b. After the Board's determination he should have been retired by reason of physical disability, he also requests: * all paperwork actions that took place after his erroneous discharge be removed from his official record, in that all subsequent actions would have been inappropriate * to have his record reflect a final discharge date of 15 June 2011 c. He requests a personal appearance before the Board. 2. The applicant states he was denied referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB) and physical evaluation board (PEB) prior to his discharge. On 16 October 2013, he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a review of his discharge but he was denied relief. In his application to the ADRB, he stated: a. He entered active duty with the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) Pre-Mobilization Training and Assistance Element (PTAE) in August 2009 under Title 32, U.S. Code, section 502. He remained in an active status until 15 June 2011. b. In April, 2011, he was ordered by his first-line leader to report for a medical evaluation because he was complaining about shortness of breath. His asthma condition had increasingly deteriorated, and caused him to fail his annual Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). c. On 21 April 2011, he completed a Periodic Health Assessment (PHA). (1) The military doctor gave him a physical profile of "P3" for asthma [A physical profile is based on six body systems: "P" = physical capacity; "U" = upper extremities; "L" = lower extremities; "H" = hearing; "E" = eyes; and "S" = psychiatric (abbreviated as PULHES). Each factor has a numerical designation, with "1" meaning a high level of fitness; "2" stands for some activity limitations; and "3" indicates significant limitations]. (2) The doctor recommended further evaluation by the nearest mild-traumatic brain injury (mTBI) clinic for an injury sustained in Iraq. He told the applicant to prepare for an MEB. d. On 26 May 2011, his commander informed him his (the applicant's) host unit, the 51st Troop Command, would no longer support his continuation on orders, and that his orders would expire on 15 June 2011. This action was because of his medical condition. e. In accordance with National Guard Bureau (NGB) policy, he submitted a written request to be continued on orders until he could be processed through the disability system. His request was denied. f. He contacted both the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) and the MAARNG Inspector General (IG). Both clearly stated it was not NGB policy to release Soldiers from active duty until they were properly reviewed by the Army disability system. The MAARNG IG's decision was verbally communicated to his command, but they elected to ignore the IG. g. On 5 June 2011, he reported, under orders, to the mTBI clinic at Naval Base Groton, CT, where he was evaluated for brain trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). That clinic recommended he continue seeing a specialist in the MA area. h. On 9 June 2011, he was ordered by the 51st Troop Command to cease all visits to military medical facilities. Further, if he persisted in these visits, he would face disciplinary action. On 15 June 2011, he was released from active duty (REFRAD) without receiving a proper medical evaluation, or a final medical or dental physical. He was returned to traditional (M-Day) weekend drill duty. i. On 13 July 2011, he was told he would not be allowed to reenlist in the ARNG because of his medical conditions. His discharge from the MAARNG was set for August 2011. j. Throughout the month of July and August, he continued his complaints, and filed requests with the MAARNG IG. He was subsequently punished under the Massachusetts Code of Military Justice, a State-level, non-judicial punishment. In July 2013, he requested the MAARNG review his discharge. Because his request was denied, he then turned to the ADRB. k. He requested to be provided invitational orders so he could proceed through the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES), and the MEB system. He did not desire to return to active duty. (1) Should the PDES process find him disabled, he asked that his discharge be updated to reflect this decision, and all other discharge paperwork be removed from his record. (2) If, after he completed PDES processing, a PEB determined he should have been retired by reason of physical disability, he requested the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) audit his financial record and provide any back retired pay due as a result, based on the percentage of disability awarded. Moreover, the MAARNG should arrange all required PDES appointments to include PEB processing. (3) If, after he completed PDES processing, the PEB determined he should have been retired by reason of physical disability, he requested: * all paperwork actions that took place after his erroneous discharge be removed from his official record, in that all subsequent actions would have been inappropriate * to have his record reflect a final discharge date of 15 June 2011 3. The applicant provided a copy of the ADRB Case Report and Directive. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's records show he was born in October 1959. He will turn 60 years of age in October 2019. 3. Having had prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and the U.S. Navy Reserve (USNR), the applicant enlisted in the VAARNG on 7 February 1994. 4. He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman), and served through multiple extensions in a variety of assignments with the VAARNG, OKARNG, and then the MAARNG. He attained the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. 5. He was ordered to active duty on 8 April 2002, and was subsequently deployed first to Afghanistan from 7 October to 1 December 2002, then to Kuwait/Iraq from 28 March 2003 to 28 July 2003. He was honorably REFRAD on 2 December 2003. 6. He was ordered to active duty on 28 October 2005, and served again in Kuwait/Iraq from 6 December 2005 to 6 November 2006. He was honorably REFRAD on 2 December 2006. 7. He was ordered to Full Time National Guard Duty – Operational Support on 1 October 2009, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, to be a part of the Pre-Mobilization Training Assistant Element, MAARNG. 8. During October 2010, he received an annual Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) covering 12 months of rated time from 5 October 2009 through 4 October 2010 for his duties as Assistant Battalion Operations NCO, 1st Battalion, 182nd Infantry, MAARNG. This NCOER shows: * he was rated "Success" or "Excellence" in all values/NCO responsibilities * he met the height and weight standards of Army Regulation (AR) 600-9 (Army Weight Control Standards) * he passed the APFT * his rater rated him with favorable comments in his duty proficiency and MOS competency * his senior rater rated him successful in terms of performance and superior rating for potential 9. The applicant was honorably REFRAD in the rank/grade of SFC/E-7 on 15 June 2011 in accordance with AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 4 (Separation for Expiration of Service Obligation), based on completing his required service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 1 year, 8 months, and 15 days of net active service this period. 10. On 14 July 2011, MAARNG published Orders 195-080 administratively reducing the applicant from SFC/E-7 to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6, effective 5 July 2011, in accordance with paragraph 7-43 (Hardship affecting Promotion and Assignment) of AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions). 11. On 30 August 2011, MAARNG published Orders 242-078 reducing the applicant from SSG/E-6 to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 due to misconduct, effective 29 August 2011, in accordance with paragraph 10-3 (Rules) of AR 600-8-19. 12. On 30 September 2011, MAARNG published Orders 273-074 discharging him from the ARNG, and transferring him, effective 30 August 2011, to the Retired Reserve in the rank/grade of SGT/E-5. 13. His NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he completed 23 years, 10 months and 25 days of total service for retired pay. 14. On 6 November 2012, he petitioned the ADRB for a review of his narrative reason for his separation. However, on 13 February 2013, his application was returned without action because he had not exhausted all administrative remedies. It was noted he needed to first appeal his case to the State Adjutant General for the MAARNG. He submitted an appeal to the MAARNG and, on 29 July 2013, his appeal was denied. 15. On 6 November 2013, he petitioned the ADRB once again. With his application, he included the following medical documents: * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) - handwritten and one signature; temporary "P3" profile * Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) - dated 20 April 2011 with PHA shown as the reason for the appointment * DD Form 2216E (Hearing Conservation Data), with test results from 2005 and 2011 16. After carefully examining his records, the ADRB determined, on 27 August 2014, his discharge was proper and equitable. 17. On 9 July 2015, the Case Management Division for the Army Review Boards Agency requested the applicant provide medical documents that supported his request for a medical discharge, to include documentation showing a diagnosis of PTSD. As of 21 October 2015, other than those documents identified above, no additional medical documents were received. 18. Two officials representing the Department of the Army Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG), provided an advisory opinion, dated 1 February 2016. The advisory noted a request had been made to review the applicant's file, and to provide an opinion as to whether he should have been placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) as opposed to being separated from active duty with an honorable discharge. a. A detailed review was conducted of the applicant's health record using the sources listed below. Based on their review, the officials concluded the applicant was appropriately REFRAD, and there was insufficient evidence to justify the initiation of an MEB. (1) Electronic medical record (also referred to as Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA)). (2) Health Artifact and Image Management Solution (HAIMS) [an electronic system that permits Department of Defense (DOD) and VA health care providers access to artifacts and images generated during healthcare, such as radiographs, clinical photographs, and audiovisual files]. (3) Materials forwarded with the request for an advisory. b. Discussion: (1) Summary of Evidence. The applicant served in the USMC and USN-USNR prior to joining the ARNG on 8 April 2002. He was 42 years old when he joined the ARNG and was a college graduate. He continued to serve in the ARNG until his REFRAD on 30 August 2011. He was serving in Milford, MA when his release was initiated, and his record shows he was awarded a Bronze Star Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, three Army Commendation Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, two Army Reserve Components Achievement Medals, and a Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal. (2) Separation Facts and Circumstances. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his REFRAD from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, authenticated by the applicant's signature. (3) The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was REFRAD under the provisions of chapter 4, AR 635-200, as a result of completion of required active service, with a characterization of service of honorable. The DD Form 214 also shows a separation program designator (SPD) code of MBK (completion of required active service), and a reentry (RE) code of "1" (qualified to reenter the U.S. Army). (4) The applicant was separated with an effective date of 30 August 2011 under Orders Number 273-074, issued by the MAARNG. c. A review of AHLTA and HAIMS records revealed no conditions for which the applicant might be considered to fail medical retention standards, as outlined in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 (Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement). (1) A Review of AHLTA and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records regarding possible mental health impairment: * 6 June 2011 - the applicant received treatment and neurological testing for TBI; the results of the neurological testing showed: * the pattern of difficulty on testing suggested possible left hemisphere dysfunction, characterized by expressive language deficiency and tactile suppressions * this is consistent with his right side "cramping" and the right-sided weakness, found by a Doctor M * this is not a typical pattern seen following concussion, PTSD, or depression * further examination into the cause of this apparent left hemisphere dysfunction is strongly advised * while the concussion and mood disorders may be contributing to his weak story recall and possibly some of the weak attention, it is not consistent with the sensory and language deficits * 12 December 2011 - the applicant received a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination for TBI; the neurologist reported the following findings: * the intermittent right-sided "cramping" suggested dystonia (involuntary muscle contractions that cause repetitive or twisting movements), most unusual to involve the chest, and not likely related to TBI * there was light sensitivity not likely related to TBI * the conditions attributed to TBI do not impact his ability to work * the applicant does have a documented history of TBI; test results suggest his reported symptoms may be due to apparent left hemisphere dysfunction and/or dystonia * there were no additional AHLTA or VA medical records that documented additional testing to clarify the cause of the symptoms * at this time, the applicant's mild neurocognitive disorder does not significantly impact his ability to fulfill the requirements of his MOS; he thus continues to meet medical retention standards (2) TBI: Not disqualifying per AR 40-501, paragraph 3-34 (Dementia and other Cognitive Disorders due to General Medical Condition). The VA interviewer and DOD provider have diagnosed a history of TBI, but also state the applicant's symptoms are not likely related to TBI. They recommend further evaluation. There are no AHLTA and/or VA records that document a further evaluation, and the VA neurologist reports his TBI does not impact his ability to work. (3) PTSD/Major Depression: There are no AHLTA notes documenting symptoms related to either PTSD or Major Depression. The applicant did have a VA C&P examiner diagnose him with chronic PTSD and mild Major Depression. The C&P examiner rated the applicant's occupational and social impairment as mild due to transient symptoms that decrease work efficiency and the ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress. * PTSD (VA diagnosis/no DOD diagnosis): Not disqualifying per AR 40-501, paragraph 3-3 (Anxiety, somatoform, or dissociative disorders) because there is no evidence to support the condition, no record of panic symptoms in treatment records, and no evidence of panic or anxiety episodes impacting duty performance * Major Depression, mild (VA diagnosis/no DOD diagnosis): Not disqualifying per AR 40-501, paragraph 3-32 (Mood Disorders) as there is no evidence to support the condition, no record of depressive symptoms in treatment records, and no evidence of depressive episodes impacting duty performance (4) In conclusion, the applicant's mental health diagnoses do not sufficiently impair his ability to complete the responsibilities associated with his MOS. He continues to meet medical retention standards. d. A review of e-Profile (electronic physical profile system) does not reveal any temporary or permanent electronic DA Forms 3349. There is, however, a handwritten DA Form 3349 showing a temporary "P3" profile for asthma, dated 21 April 2011. (1) This temporary profile was apparently generated during a PHA. The DA Form 3349 shows restrictions in block 5j (Live in an Austere Environment without Worsening the Medical Condition), block 6 (APFT), and block 8 (Functional Limitations and Capabilities and Other Comments), it also indicates the applicant would experience difficulty with aerobic events and experience an increase in breathing problems due to changes in weather. (2) An AHLTA entry dated 21 April 2011 made by a Dr. M noted the applicant had a history of asthma, and was being followed by his civilian allergist for treatment. Dr. M also indicated the applicant's asthma was not under sufficient control to allow him to pass the APFT. No other treatment encounters for asthma were found in AHLTA or HAIMS. Additionally, documentation from the civilian allergist was not presented for review. e. In order to be eligible for consideration by an MEB, the applicant's condition(s) must have occurred while in the line of duty, and must have reached the Medical Retention Determination Point (MRDP). (1) MRDP is defined as being when the Soldier's progress appears to have medically stabilized; the course of further recovery is relatively predictable; and where it can be reasonably determined the Soldier is most likely not capable of performing the duties required of his/her MOS and rank. (2) In this case, there is no documentation to substantiate his asthma was incurred in the line of duty, and the documentation presented does not indicate that, despite adequate treatment, his asthma would have prevented him from being able to perform an aerobic event for the APFT at some point in the future. (3) The normal range of treatment considered to be within the "Standard of Care" must have been exhausted, with no ability to meet retention standards, before MRDP can be deemed to have been met. (4) The documentation presented regarding asthma is inadequate to determine this condition met MRDP at his REFRAD. f. Advisory Opinion: It is the opinion of the two officials the evidence is insufficient to show the applicant's asthma condition was incurred in the line of duty, and the available documentation does not support this condition met MRDP requirements, should line of duty be proven at a later date. Additionally, as stated by the clinical psychologist, the applicant's mental health status met retention standards at the time of his REFRAD. As such, consideration by an MEB is not appropriate. g. Recommendation: The Board should uphold the findings of the ADRB in its previous consideration of the applicant's case. 19. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion. He submitted the following response: a. Although it may seem counter-intuitive, he believes the advisory opinion supports his original case. (1) He initially applied for relief because the MAARNG violated a very specific NGB regulation (NGB Policy Memorandum Number 09-009, paragraph 15(a) and (b)). This paragraph required his placement in the Army's medical evaluation system (broadly known as MEB and PEB). (2) The MAARNG discharged him from active duty and placed him back on traditional ARNG M-Day status, thereby denying him access to the medical process. More importantly, this action served to keep his civilian medical records out of the hands of the MEB/PEB. b. The advisory opinion is correct to note there is little evidence in his record to support a medical evaluation of his asthma. This is because the typical ARNG Soldier does not use the military medical system other than for deployments and annual health assessments. (1) It should be noted that he mentioned his pulmonary issues in at least two prior annual health assessments (2009 and 2010, respectively). (2) Moreover, he has a copy of his Army medical records, made just before his discharge. These records show over two years of increasing use of asthma-related medicines, to include Prednisone, Albuterol, Advair, Alvesco, and Xolair injections (for treatment of highly unstable asthma). (3) Please also recall, in his initial application, he stated he was ordered by his chain of command to stop seeing military medical personnel, and to use civilian services only. c. In short, the MAARNG's actions simply prevented any military medical board, including the professional work performed by the writers of the advisory opinion, from seeing his complete medical record. This is, indeed, the crux of his argument. Simply put, he asks the Board to assess whether it was legal for the MAARNG to bypass the requirements of NGB Policy Memorandum Number 09-009, and discharge him, thus denying him access to an MEB and PEB. d. He reasserts his request to appear before the Board. REFERENCES: 1. Memorandum, dated 1 June 2009, issued by the NGB, Subject: Guidance for Full-Time National Guard Duty Mobilization Augmentee (FTNGDMA) Duty (NGB-ARH Policy Memo #09-009) established, assigned responsibilities for, and prescribed procedures that governed the FTNGDMA program. a. The FTNGDMA policy essentially stated FTNGDMA personnel were substitutes for AGR personnel who had been mobilized. b. To be eligible, Soldiers had to meet the following requirements: * be a member of the ARNG * meet medical retention standards * not be within 6 months of mandatory removal or expiration of term of service on the report date of the tour (unless waived) * must not be able to qualify for sanctuary as a result of the operational support order (unless waived) * must not be placed on orders that could qualify him/her for separation pay (unless waived) * must not be flagged * must take a current APFT within 6 months of the FTNGDMA start date c. Paragraph 15 (Soldiers on Orders for more than 30 days with Medical Conditions) states, in summary: * Soldiers identified with pre-existing medical conditions that prevent him/her from meeting medical retention standards are required to undergo an MEB * Soldiers who develop a medical condition which prevents him/her from meeting medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 will be referred to the PDES; any Soldier already in the PDES is not able to apply for full-time duty 2. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. a. Chapter 3 states the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating. b. Chapter 4 provides guidance on referring Soldiers for evaluation by an MEB when a question arises as to the Soldier's ability to perform the duties of his or her office because of physical disability. 3. AR 40-501 provides medical retention standards and is used by MEBs to determine which medical conditions will be referred to a PEB. Paragraph 3-3 states Soldiers whose medical conditions fail retention standards are to be referred to a PEB as defined in AR 635-40. The PEB will make the determination of fitness or unfitness. 4. DOD Manual 1332.18, Volume 2, prescribes policies and procedures for the processing of Soldiers with duty-related disabling medical conditions. a. IDES is a joint DOD and VA process by which it is determined if Soldiers who have been wounded, ill, or injured are fit for continued military service. b. In consultation with the Soldier's commander and on approval by the MEB convening authority, a military medical provider refers a Soldier with disabling medical conditions to IDES. (1) The VA provides the medical examinations (identified as C&P examinations) of the disabling conditions. Then, based on the VA's medical examinations, an MEB makes an assessment to identify those medical conditions that fail to meet medical retention standards. All conditions failing retention standards are referred to a PEB for a fitness determination. (2) Conditions found by the PEB to be unfitting are sent to the VA for a disability rating. In determining the rating(s) to be assigned, the VA uses the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Each rated disability is assigned a code by VA in accordance with the schedule of ratings within the VASRD. (3) Upon receipt of the disability rating(s) from VA, the results are finalized and the disposition can include the Soldier being returned to duty or separated (either with severance pay, if the total disability rating is 20 percent or less, or retired, for those cases where the disability rating is 30 percent or higher). 5. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes policies and procedures for the ABCMR. It states, in pertinent part, the ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional supporting documentation or opinions. It states further, in paragraph 2-11, that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 6. AR 600-8-19, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted promotions and reductions. Paragraph 7-43 stated: a. Soldiers could decline an assignment for which they were otherwise fully eligible based on having a hardship that developed after signed an NGB Form 4100-1-R-E (Army National Guard Enlisted Promotion Point Worksheet - Sergeant/Staff Sergeant Boards) accepting consideration for promotion. b. Soldiers with hardships approved by the State AG will stay on list but are not eligible for an assignment or promotion until the hardship no longer exists. c. Hardships included increased demands resulting from personal medical problems. DISCUSSION: 1. The Board considered the applicant's request for a personal appearance; however, by regulation an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. The Director of the ABCMR, or a panel of the Board, can authorize a personal appearance. In this case, the evidence of record is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 2. The applicant asserts he should have the opportunity to be enrolled in the PDES rather than being honorably REFRAD. His records appear to suggest he had the following disabling conditions: asthma, TBI, PTSD, and Major Depression. a. Two officials from OTSG reviewed all available military and VA medical records, as well as information submitted by the applicant. Based on an extensive review, they were unable to find that any of the identified medical conditions failed medical retention standards at the time he was REFRAD. b. He contends the MAARNG failed to follow NGB Policy Memorandum 09-009, dated 1 June 2009, Subject: Guidance for FTNGDMA Duty by failing to allow him to remain on active duty so as to be referred into the PDES. (1) The policy memorandum addresses two relevant situations: * the Soldier has a pre-existing condition * the Soldier develops a medical condition * both stipulate the condition must prevent the Soldier from meeting medical retention standards (2) As noted above, the applicant appears to have met retention standards at the time of his REFRAD, and, as such, this paragraph did not apply. 3. As to receiving back pay, the removal of all documents produced after his REFRAD, and correcting his record to show his final discharge date is 15 June 2011, the fact he was not eligible to have his case evaluated within the PDES appears to obviate these requests. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004189 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150004189 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2