IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012815 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 IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012815 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 set forth in Docket Number AR20120000057 on 19 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 January 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150012815 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: The applicant defers to counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE 1. Counsel, on behalf of the daughter of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests reconsideration of their previous request for an upgrade of the FSM's undesirable discharge to a discharge under honorable conditions (general). 2. Counsel states additional review is warranted under the revised September 2014 Department of Defense (DOD) guidelines for Vietnam Era service members with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Counsel notes that: a. The fact that the FSM committed suicide is a marker for both symptomology and a diagnosis of PTSD. b. The forensic medical evidence provided by Dr. T____ W____, Doctor of Psychology (PhD), Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW), Veterans Center St. Petersburg, Florida, states, "…in his assessment using acceptable clinical testing, [the FSM] meets or exceeds all criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD…[the FSM] manifested symptoms attributed to traumatic brain injury (TBI) and/or severe encephalopathy; these are acceptable markers and stressors of PTSD." c. In her letter R____ M____, an LCSW at the Naval Support Activities, Mayport Naval Base, Florida, states, "…using acceptable standards and reviewing [the FSM's] military medical records…and his complete Personnel File as well as other documents (lay statements, buddy statements and letters from the Tribal Chairman of the Seminole Tribe of Florida) and from his Veterans Affairs C-file, [she] concluded that [the FSM] would have met current day diagnosis of PTSD." 3. Counsel states the Army talks of equity but in reality the facts were ignored in the previous consideration of the case. Facts were presented with evidence, both new and material, as well as factual documentation of the character and valor that the veteran showed in combat. a. The Army failed to apply consistent and medically appropriate standards to assess the impact of the combat-related PTSD the FSM experienced and the impact that it had on the FSM's conduct prior to his suicide. The FSM suffered from this illness long before it was recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or by the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). h. Convincing evidence was previously submitted to ARBA in the form of firsthand accounts and medical evidence that the FSM had combat PTSD and TBI. He was injured in Vietnam and was not expected to recover from his wounds. Not only did he recover, he requested to stay in country and return to his unit, which was granted. Then, for the convenience of the Army, he was immediately discharged and reenlisted for a period of 6 years. If equity is applied to this case, in 1972 they would never have allowed him to reenlist with symptoms of PTSD and the effects of TBI. 3. The applicant provides: * statement from Dr. T____ W____ dated 23 August 2012 * statement from the Bureau Chief, Vietnam Veterans of America, dated 14 November 2016 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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records in Docket Number AR20120000057 on 19 June 2012. 2. The available records do not contain any service medical and dental records for the FSM. If any such records exist it is possible they are on permanent loan to the VA and are not available for review by this Board. 3. The FSM enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 November 1965, completed training for military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). He served in Vietnam from May 1966 to June 1967 with Company A, 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry. Effective 13 February 1967, he was promoted to sergeant/pay grade E-5. 4. On 10 March 1967, while in Vietnam, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk and disorderly while on duty and failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment was reduction to corporal/pay grade E-4. 5. He departed Vietnam on or about 5 June 1967 to return to the United States. He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 325th Infantry, Fort Bragg, NC, where he was honorably discharged on 14 November 1967 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment (for 6 years). He was issued a DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) and an honorable discharge certificate for his first enlisted period of service. His awards included: * Parachutist Badge * Vietnam Service Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Combat Infantryman Badge * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * two overseas service bars 6. He was promoted to sergeant/pay grade E-5 again on 17 November 1967. 7. During the FSM's second enlistment he received NJP on seven occasions: * 6 September 1968, for being incapacitated in the performance of his duties as a result of indulgence in intoxicating alcohol * 2 December 1968, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 November to 1 December 1968 * 22 January 1969, for being AWOL from 27 to 30 December 1968 * 6 February 1970, for twice failing to go to his appointed place of duty * 2 May 1970, for twice failing to go to his appointed place of duty * 2 June 1970, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty * 22 June 1970, for twice failing to go to his appointed place of duty 8. As a result of NJP, he was reduced to corporal/pay grade E-4 effective 6 September 1968 and to private first class/pay grade E-3 effective 4 December 1968. 9. His record contains the following court-martial documents: a. On 26 February 1969, a special court-martial found the FSM guilty of one specification of breaking restriction and one specification of being AWOL from 1 to 4 February 1969. a. On 19 November 1969, a special court-martial found the FSM guilty of four specifications of assaulting four Soldiers on 23 September 1969. 10. Effective 4 December 1969, he was reduced to private/pay grade E-1. 11. The FSM went AWOL on 3 August 1970. The available record contains evidence that in March 1972 civilian authorities detained and questioned the FSM with regard to his AWOL status. It was noted that he was not hiding and he advised the authorities that he had been court-martialed and processed for discharge and he was waiting to receive his paperwork in the mail. Following up on the FSM's statement, there was no evidence of a court-martial imposed discharge or an undesirable discharge. Subsequently, the FSM was taken into custody. He returned to military control on 31 May 1974. 12. On 7 June 1974, court-martial charges were preferred against the FSM for being AWOL from 3 August 1970 through 30 May 1974. 13. On 7 June 1974, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant submitted a written request under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, requesting discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial for an offense punishable by a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He acknowledged that, if the request was accepted, he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. He acknowledged that such a discharge would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, and that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life as a result of such a discharge. 14. His request for discharge was approved and he was discharged on 17 July 1974 with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 for this period of service shows: * 1 year, 11 months, and 23 days of creditable active duty service this period * 2 years and 6 days of prior active duty service * 1,490 days of lost time prior to his normal expiration term of service (ETS) and 200 days of lost time post-ETS * awards including: * National Defense Service Medal * Combat Infantryman Badge * Vietnam Service Medal with five bronze service stars * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) * 3 overseas service bars * Parachutist Badge 15. In addition to the awards listed on the FSM's DD Forms 214, his record contains evidence he was awarded or authorized to wear the following: * Air Medal (2nd Award) for meritorious service * Presidential Unit Citation * Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation 16. The FSM's DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) shows no entry for any wounds received and his name does not appear on the Vietnam Casualty List. 17. The FSM died by suicide on 13 September 1974. 18. On 19 June 2012, the ABCMR reviewed the available records and evidence submitted by the applicant. The Board determined the FSM's discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 19. In the 23 August 2012 statement provided by counsel, Dr. T____ W____, PhD, LCSW, concludes that the FSM met the criteria for diagnosis of PTSD and also manifested symptoms attributable to TBI or severe encephalopathy. 20. In the development of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency clinical psychologist. The psychologist was asked to determine if the FSM’s separation was due to a diagnosis of PTSD or another behavioral health condition. Her review is based on the evidence provided by the applicant and the FSM?s personnel record. : a. The 23 December 2012 medical note, unofficially signed and not on official VA letterhead, provided by a licensed social worker indicated the FSM met criteria for PTSD and manifested symptoms attributable to TBI and/or severe encephalopathy. There is no indication that any assessment or clinical testing was completed prior to the FSM's death in 1974. The statement provided no supporting medical information or documentation regarding the nature or severity of the FSM's behavioral health symptoms while in service or immediately post service. b. Based on a thorough review of available medical records, there is no evidence that the FSM met criteria for PTSD during his military service that led to his extensive pattern of misconduct. During his long period of AWOL, there is no evidence the FSM communicated concerns related to behavioral health or other forms of stress to his command. In fact, his commander attributed the FSM’s long period of absence to his gross immaturity, failure to accept responsibility and the routine of Army life, and his intent not to return. c. Furthermore, the medical evidence that is available is posthumous – the information provided was discovered and appeared after the death of the FSM and therefore lacks validity. This observation does not negate the several letters of support from the FSM’s daughter, Chairman of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and a former unit member; however, the FSM's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning events that could have contributed to a PTSD or similar behavioral health condition. Given the absence of documentation regarding the nature or severity of the FSM's symptoms or other service documents indicating exposure to trauma and its impact on functioning, an advisory opinion about the FSM meeting DSM-5 criteria for PTSD or any other mental health condition and whether or not these diagnoses mitigated his misconduct cannot be rendered. 21. A copy of the advisory opinion was forwarded to counsel and a response was received from M____ M____, Bureau Chief, Vietnam Veterans of America. He states: a. The length and character of service of the FSM, exclusive of the period of prolonged AWOL, should generally be of such quality and length that it can be characterized as honest, faithful, and meritorious and of benefit to the Nation. b. The FSM did in fact have multiple AWOL charges, but it should be noted in each case after returning to his unit he had UCMJ proceedings and he would be reinstated as a team leader and sent back into combat where he distinguished himself and his unit in hostile combat conditions. [The FSM received one NJP in Vietnam for drunk and disorderly conduct. His history of AWOL began after his Vietnam service.] c. The reasons for his periods of AWOL offered by the claimant include family emergencies or obligations, or similar types of obligations or duties owed to third parties. The reason for going AWOL should be evaluated in terms of the person's age, cultural background, educational level, and judgmental maturity. Consideration should be given to how the situation appeared to the person himself, and not how the adjudicator might have reacted. Hardship or suffering incurred during overseas service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Battle of la Drang Valley, or as a result of combat wounds (it has been noted in official statements that during this battle the FSM suffered a head injury and was unconscious for some period of time), must be carefully and sympathetically considered in evaluating the person's state of mind at the time the prolonged AWOL period began. d. A valid legal defense exists for the absence which would have precluded a conviction for AWOL. Compelling circumstances did occur as a matter of law if the absence could not validly be charged as, or lead to a conviction of, an offense under the UCMJ. For the purpose of this paragraph the defense must go directly to the substantive issue of absence rather than to procedures, technicalities, or formalities. e. The FSM in fact did go AWOL; he was a young man of Native American cultural background who had a drinking problem once his unit returned to the rear after extensive and fierce fighting. The FSM?s cultural differences [stem] from the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the only Native American Tribe that has never signed a peace accord with the U.S. Government, hence the title "The Unconquered". His direct superiors always took these actions of drinking and being AWOL as part of the package since his supportive nature to lead and protect his men made the FSM indispensable when his unit went back into combat. f. The VA made an administrative decision on 19 June 2012 to grant the FSM relief under Chapter 17 of Title 38, United States Code (USC)). This relief came 48 (sic) years after the FSM took his own life soon after being discharged from the military in 1974. g. Two expert witnesses in treating clinical PTSD for the VA and the U.S. Navy have reviewed his file and his background and, both being credible experts in their respective fields, find that the FSM most likely had both PTSD (which was not officially recognized until 1985) and TBI from the concussion during the battle of la Drang. h. Other issues should be given consideration based on historical and stressors and noted markers of the FSM's behavior after the battle of la Drang – evidence from Saint Petersburg Veterans Center (medical opinion of mental health provider Dr. T____ W____) and reference Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 4.126 – Evaluation of disability from mental disorders: (1) When evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. (2) When evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. (3) Delirium, dementia, and amnestic and other cognitive disorders shall be evaluated under the general rating formula for mental disorders; neurologic deficits or other impairments stemming from the same etiology (e.g., a head injury) shall be evaluated separately and combined with the evaluation for delirium, dementia, or amnestic or other cognitive disorder (see section 4.25). (4) When a single disability has been diagnosed both as a physical condition and as a mental disorder, the rating agency shall evaluate it using a diagnostic code which represents the dominant (more disabling) aspect of the condition (see section 4.14). (Authority – Title 38 USC 1155) i. They ask that relief in the form of a discharge upgrade from under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge under honorable conditions be granted to the FSM based on the above mitigating circumstances and the issues that have been raised in this formal application. The FSM and his heirs should be granted the relief so that the cultural differences of the Native American can allow the spirit and the families of the FSM to rest in peace. During these conflicts "Bad Paper" was given disproportionately to ethnic minorities for minor and frivolous reasons and was based more on race than the crimes against the UCMJ. The FSM's crime was being intoxicated, leaving his assigned post during stand downs and the resizing of the military during the post-Vietnam Era. They do not attempt to minimize what the FSM did; they ask that the Board simply consider the offenses and the battle weary veteran that came home to an unwelcoming atmosphere that was sometimes very volatile and hostile toward the minorities that served our country. He then took his own life after his discharge because both the effects of PTSD. The dishonor of being released from the military took a toll on this somewhat immature Native American who had served both proudly and with distinction in major battles in the early years of Vietnam. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 15–185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing in accordance with Title 10, USC, section 1034 and Department of Defense Directive Number 7050.6 (Military Whistleblower Protection) or request additional evidence or opinions. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It states that: a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. b. A general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an HD. c. An under other than honorable conditions discharge (then referred to as an undesirable discharge) is issued when there is one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of a Soldier. d. Chapter 10, as then in effect, provided that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of an undesirable discharge certificate. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states that a bronze service star is authorized, based on qualifying service, for each designated campaign listed in Appendix B of the regulation and states that authorized service stars will be worn on the appropriate campaign or service medal. The regulation also lists the designated campaign periods for which a bronze service star is authorized for wear on the Vietnam Service Medal. Based on the applicant's dates of service in Vietnam (19 May 1966 to 5 June 1967), Appendix B indicates he served during the following three campaign periods: the Vietnam Counteroffensive, 25 December 1965 - 30 June 1966; the Counteroffensive Phase II, 1 July 1966 - 31 May 1967; and the Counteroffensive Phase III, 1 June 1967 - 29 January 1968. 4. The DSM published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) states PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. It provides standard criteria and common language for the classification of mental disorders. In 1980, the APA added PTSD to the third edition of its DSM-Ill nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From an historical perspective, the significant change ushered in by the PTSD concept was the stipulation that the etiological agent was outside the individual (i.e., a traumatic event) rather than an inherent individual weakness (i.e., a traumatic neurosis). The key to understanding the scientific basis and clinical expression of PTSD is the concept of "trauma." 5. PTSD is unique among psychiatric diagnoses because of the great importance placed upon the etiological agent, the traumatic stressor. In fact, one cannot make a PTSD diagnosis unless the patient has actually met the "stressor criterion," which means that he or she has been exposed to an event that is considered traumatic. Clinical experience with the PTSD diagnosis has shown, however, that there are individual differences regarding the capacity to cope with catastrophic stress. Therefore, while most people exposed to traumatic events do not develop PTSD, others go on to develop the full-blown syndrome. Such observations have prompted the recognition that trauma, like pain, is not an external phenomenon that can be completely objectified. Like pain, the traumatic experience is filtered through cognitive and emotional processes before it can be appraised as an extreme threat. Because of individual differences in this appraisal process, different people appear to have different trauma thresholds, some more protected from and some more vulnerable to developing clinical symptoms after exposure to extremely stressful situations. 6. The DSM Fifth Revision (DSM-5) was released in May 2013. This revision includes changes to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and Acute Stress Disorder. The PTSD diagnostic criteria were revised to take into account things that have been learned from scientific research and clinical experience. The revised diagnostic criteria for PTSD include a history of exposure to a traumatic event that meets specific stipulations and symptoms from each of four symptom clusters: intrusion, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, and alterations in arousal and reactivity. The sixth criterion concerns duration of symptoms; the seventh assesses functioning; and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. 7. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis and treatment of PTSD the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge. It is also acknowledged that in some cases this undiagnosed condition of PTSD may have been a mitigating factor in the Soldier's misconduct which served as a catalyst for their discharge. Research has also shown that misconduct stemming from PTSD is typically based upon a spur of the moment decision resulting from temporary lapse in judgment; therefore, PTSD is not a likely cause for either premeditated misconduct or misconduct that continues for an extended period of time. 8. In view of the foregoing, on 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged UOTHC and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 9. BCM/NRs are not courts, nor are they investigative agencies. Therefore, the determinations will be based upon a thorough review of the available military records and the evidence provided by each applicant on a case-by-case basis. When determining if PTSD was the causative factor for an applicant's misconduct and whether an upgrade is warranted, the following factors must be carefully considered: * Is it reasonable to determine that PTSD or PTSD-related conditions existed at the time of discharge? * Does the applicant's record contain documentation of the occurrence of a traumatic event during the period of service? * Does the applicant's military record contain documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms? * Did the applicant provide documentation of a diagnosis of PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms rendered by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider? * Was the applicant's condition determined to have existed prior to military service? * Was the applicant's condition determined to be incurred during or aggravated by military service? * Do mitigating factors exist in the applicant's case? * Did the applicant have a history of misconduct prior to the occurrence of the traumatic event? * Was the applicant's misconduct premeditated? * How serious was the misconduct? 10. Although the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under conditions other than honorable may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge; those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Corrections Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat-related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Corrections Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. DISCUSSION: 1. The FSM's discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time. His under other than honorable conditions discharge was commensurate with the basis for his discharge. He had over 1,600 days of lost time subsequent to his service in Vietnam for which he had been awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and two Air Medals. 2. At the time of his discharge, PTSD was largely unrecognized by the medical community and DOD. However, both the medical community and DOD now have a more thorough understanding of PTSD and its potential to serve as a causative factor in a Soldier's misconduct when the condition is not diagnosed and treated in a timely fashion. Soldiers who suffered from PTSD and were separated solely for misconduct subsequent to a traumatic event warrant careful consideration for the possible recharacterization of their overall service. 3. The advising psychologist in this case found that, based on a thorough review of available medical records, there is no evidence that the FSM met criteria for PTSD during his military service or that PTSD led to his extensive pattern of misconduct. She noted that, during his long period of AWOL, there is no evidence the FSM communicated concerns related to behavioral health or other forms of stress to his command. 4. The advising psychologist further noted that, given the absence of documentation regarding the nature or severity of the FSM's symptoms or other service documents indicating exposure to trauma and its impact on functioning, she could not render an advisory opinion about the FSM meeting DSM-5 criteria for PTSD or any other mental health condition and whether or not these diagnoses mitigated his misconduct. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012815 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150012815 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2