BOARD DATE: 14 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012487 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF __x______ ___x_____ ___x__ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 14 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012487 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by re-issuing the applicant's DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) for the period ending 31 July 1969 to show the characterization of his service as "Under Honorable Conditions (General)." 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to correcting his DD Form 214, for the period ending 31 July 1969, to show the characterization of his service as "Honorable." ___________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: 14 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160012487 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 an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to honorable or under honorable conditions (general). 2. The applicant states that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and contends that PTSD was the catalyst for his misconduct. a. His discharge was directly related to PTSD incurred while he was on active duty. He was diagnosed with PTSD and is enrolled in the "ARC" mental health program. The condition was called shell-shock when he was discharged. He is in the process of filing for PTSD with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) because he was diagnosed with PTSD through the VA. b. It was not until after he left Vietnam that he had many problems and issues. It was not until he got into a VA counseling program that he came to understand his PTSD caused many of his issues. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) * self-authored statement * State of Illinois VA Problem List and Notes, dated 1 - 23 June 2016 * VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), not dated 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 January 1967. He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman). 3. The applicant deployed to the Republic of Vietnam from on or about 27 June 1967 through on or about 21 June 1968. He was assigned to the following units: * Company C, 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division from 7 July 1967 to 9 September 1967 * Company D, 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division from 10 September 1967 to 6 May 1968 * Company C, 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division from 7 May 1968 to 17 June 1968 4. The applicant's record shows during his service in Vietnam he accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on: * 29 December 1967, for wrongfully and without authority wearing the sergeant rank on his uniform and for being found in an off-limits area * 13 February 1968, for missing movement * 7 May 1968, for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer 5. A DA Form 20B (Insert Sheet to DA Form 20 – Record of Court-Martial Conviction) shows he was convicted at a: a. Summary court-martial while assigned to 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 41st Infantry Regiment, Fort Hood, TX for violating Article 92 of the UCMJ, disobeying a lawful order. He was sentenced to reduction to private/E-1 and hard labor without confinement for 45 days. The sentence was adjudged and approved on 31 August 1968. b. Special court-martial while assigned to 1st Battalion (Mechanized), 41st Infantry Regiment, Fort Hood, TX for violating Article 92 of the UCMJ, disobeying a lawful order. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for six months and to forfeiture of $72.00 per month for six months. The sentenced was adjudged on 13 September 1968 and approved on 13 September 1968. c. Special court-martial while assigned to 1st Battalion, 34th Infantry Regiment, Fort Riley, KS for violating Article 86 of the UCMJ, absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 February 1969 to 6 May 1969. He was sentenced to reduction to private/E-1; confinement at hard labor for six months; and to forfeiture of $97.00 per month for six months (Confinement and Forfeiture in excess of 3 months was suspended). The sentenced was adjudged on 6 June 1969 and approved on 13 June 1969. 6. A Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 2 July 1969, shows the applicant was examined and diagnosed with passive-aggressive personality, chronic, moderate, manifested by obstructionism, persistent reaction to frustration with irritability, anger, ineptness, and hostility. The examiner noted the following about the applicant: * he gave a history of marked social inadaptability that occurred prior to and during his military service * he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings * there are no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels * It can be presumed that the longstanding character and behavior disorder described will tend to exist permanently 7. On 7 July 1969, the Commander, U.S. Army Correctional Holding Detachment, Fort Riley, KS, recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Unfitness and Unsuitability) for unfitness. The commander recommended a rehabilitation waiver and that an Undesirable Discharge Certificate be furnished. 8. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action on 9 July 1969. He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effects of a waiver of his rights. He further acknowledged: * he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if issued an undesirable discharge (UOTHC) * he may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws 9. On 22 July 1969, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation action. The separation authority directed reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, if applicable, and directed the issuance of an undesirable discharge certificate. 10. Special Court-Martial Order Number 1757, issued by Headquarters, Special Processing Detachment, Fort Riley, KS, on 23 July 1969, shows his confinement sentence was remitted effective on the date of his discharged from service. 11. The applicant was discharged on 31 July 1969. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness, with service characterized as UOTHC. He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 2 days of creditable active service, of which 11 months and 25 days was foreign service and 251 days was lost time. 12. On 16 November 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board advised the applicant that his request for an upgrade of his discharge was denied. 13. The applicant provides: a. A self-authored statement which states: (1) For him, both basic training and advanced individual training (AIT) was way more intense and challenging than he imagined, but he loved and really needed the challenge. Up to that point, he had never been more than a two-block radius from where he lived, except for when he rode the school bus. In basic training and AIT he was eager to learn and develop as a man. He never had any kind of problems with his squad members, noncommissioned officers or anyone else. He received excellent ratings due to his need to be the best that he could be. (2) Reality began to sink in when he arrived in Vietnam. He joined his platoon in the field while well-armed, locked and loaded, and ready to start the job he arrived to do. It wasn't long before his first fire fight. (3) In Vietnam he saw and smelled bodies covered in napalm, burnt to a crisp. He saw decapitated bodies; bodies with missing parts; and just body parts to that need to be policed up and bagged. He saw all kinds of gruesome scenes. No matter what he encountered there, even when his young brain was overwhelmed, nothing was wrong with his reflexes. He never failed his brothers or his country during battle, and he never ran from a fight. He fought as hard as anyone and always did what was expected of him; that fact cannot be disputed. (4) He knows he will never forget the first person he knew he killed, as well as other instances of war. One incident resulting from the disrespect of remains by a noncommissioned officer was too much for him to process. He doesn't remember much after that, but a deep anger, and the need to get away from the war. So, he honestly believes his discharge was the direct result of his time in Vietnam. (5) He understands that PTSD was not diagnosed back then. He wishes more was done back in July 1969 then just sticking a label on him of passive aggressive personality disorder. They were tired of dealing with him, so they offered him an undesirable discharge as a way out. Of course, he took it. He was just desperate enough to do or sign anything that would get him as far away as possible. He has often wondered how his life would have been if someone had seen through all the anger and all the other garbage he was carrying and given him the help he now receives from the VA. Perhaps he could have avoided some of the really bad decisions he has made over the years. (6) He was given VA medical benefits after a local veterans' advocate said being in combat qualified him for benefits; now suddenly, he stands to lose the benefits. He needs the Board's help to keep the benefits. (7) He needs programs like ARC that provide him with the tools to help him face things he kept buried. Due to the help he receives from his mental health care providers, he has been able to develop relationships with them, and he has learned to trust them. If it were not for them, he would not have been able to open himself up like this. He is still a work in progress, but at least now, he does not feel hopeless to where he needs to lock himself away for weeks, or drink himself to oblivion. They gave him some relief from his demons and a lot of hope. He would hate to lose this after needing it for so long. b. State of Illinois VA Problem List and Notes, dated 1 - 23 June 2016, which shows a list of active health problems his VA providers are helping him manage. It also shows he was diagnosed with and was treated for PTSD. c. VA Form 21-4138 that shows he responded to an Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) advisory opinion. It appears he is using some of the language within the advisory opinion to assist with his VA benefits claim. 14. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 10 January 2017, from the ARBA Psychiatrist. The advisory official noted and opined: a. A VA mental health treatment plan dated 7 June 2016 shows a diagnoses of PTSD. He was noted to be suffering from the following PTSD symptoms: isolation, emotional numbing, increased anger, intrusive memories, and avoidant behaviors. His traumatic stressor is described as being due to combat in Vietnam where he witnessed "burned bodies due to napalm, skinned bodies, [and] people beheaded." b. The applicant's previous ADRB case report and directive, dated 29 October 1981, summarizes his military history as follows: (1) He completed initial entry training with excellent ratings. He was reassigned to Vietnam and promoted to private first class/E-3 in late June 1967. He received unsatisfactory ratings in September 1967 and was reassigned to another company within his battalion. (2) He received three Article 15s while in this unit in Vietnam, yet he still received excellent ratings and a certificate of achievement for service. (3) In August 1968, he was reassigned to Fort Hood, TX. He received a summary court-martial, a special court-martial, and was then confined at Fort Riley, KS. After release, he was assigned to a Fort Riley unit where he was later charged by civilian authorities for carrying a concealed weapon. This seemed to trigger action by his command to recommend separation for unfitness. (4) He was evaluated by psychiatry, rehabilitation was waived, and he was discharged for unfitness with an undesirable discharge. He was recorded AWOL several times after returning from Vietnam. c. Review of the military medical records indicates these records are void of documentation of any behavioral-health diagnosis to include PTSD. However, after the he returned from Vietnam, he endorsed frequent trouble sleeping and having a drug or narcotic habit on a Standard Form 89 (Report of Medical History), dated 30 January 1969. d. Based on the information available in his military records and the VA's diagnosis of PTSD, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he had undiagnosed PTSD while on active duty. e. PTSD can be associated with disobedient, rebellious behaviors as well as avoidant behaviors. There is likely a nexus between his PTSD and the misconduct that led to his UOTHC discharge from the Army. PTSD is considered mitigating for the offenses leading to his discharge from the Army. 18. The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion on 18 January 2017, to provide him an opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal. He responded and provided additional information. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability. The regulation provided that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness when one or more of the following conditions existed: (1) because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities; (2) sexual perversion including but not limited to lewd and lascivious acts, indecent exposure, indecent acts with or assault on a child; (3) drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-forming drugs or marijuana; (4) an established pattern of shirking; (5) an established pattern of dishonorable failure to pay just debts; and (6) an established pattern showing dishonorable failure to contribute adequate support to dependents (including failure to comply with orders, decrees or judgments). When separation for unfitness was warranted, an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 3. PTSD can occur after someone goes through a traumatic event like combat, assault, or disaster. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and 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-III 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." 4. 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. 5. 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. a. Criterion A, stressor: The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, as follows: (one required) (1) Direct exposure. (2) Witnessing, in person. (3) Indirectly, by learning that a close relative or close friend was exposed to trauma. If the event involved actual or threatened death, it must have been violent or accidental. (4) Repeated or extreme indirect exposure to aversive details of the event(s), usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, collecting body parts; professionals repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). This does not include indirect non-professional exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures. b. Criterion B, intrusion symptoms: The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in the following way(s): (one required) (1) Recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive memories. (2) Traumatic nightmares. (3) Dissociative reactions (e.g., flashbacks) which may occur on a continuum from brief episodes to complete loss of consciousness. (4) Intense or prolonged distress after exposure to traumatic reminders. (5) Marked physiologic reactivity after exposure to trauma-related stimuli. c. Criterion C, avoidance: Persistent effortful avoidance of distressing trauma-related stimuli after the event: (one required) (1) Trauma-related thoughts or feelings. (2) Trauma-related external reminders (e.g., people, places, conversations, activities, objects, or situations). d. Criterion D, negative alterations in cognitions and mood: Negative alterations in cognitions and mood that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Inability to recall key features of the traumatic event (usually dissociative amnesia; not due to head injury, alcohol, or drugs). (2) Persistent (and often distorted) negative beliefs and expectations about oneself or the world (e.g., "I am bad," "The world is completely dangerous"). (3) Persistent distorted blame of self or others for causing the traumatic event or for resulting consequences. (4) Persistent negative trauma-related emotions (e.g., fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame). (5) Markedly diminished interest in (pre-traumatic) significant activities. Feeling alienated from others (e.g., detachment or estrangement). (6) Constricted affect: persistent inability to experience positive emotions. e. Criterion E, alterations in arousal and reactivity: Trauma-related alterations in arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the traumatic event: (two required) (1) Irritable or aggressive behavior (2) Self-destructive or reckless behavior (3) Hypervigilance (4) Exaggerated startle response (5) Problems in concentration (6) Sleep disturbance f. Criterion F, duration: Persistence of symptoms (in Criteria B, C, D, and E) for more than one month. g. Criterion G, functional significance: Significant symptom-related distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational). h. Criterion H, exclusion: Disturbance is not due to medication, substance use, or other illness. 6. 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 Department of Defense (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. 7. 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. 8. 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? 9. Although 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 presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. a. 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 UOTHC characterization of service. b. 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 UOTHC. 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. c. Correction 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. 10. On 25 August 2017 the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; traumatic brain injury (TBI); sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge was carefully considered. He contends that the effects from serving in Vietnam contributed to his misconduct. 2. The applicant's discharge proceedings, for misconduct, were conducted in accordance with law and regulations in effect at the time. The characterization of the applicant's discharge was commensurate with the reason for discharge and overall record of military service in accordance with the governing regulations in effect at the time. 3. At the time of the applicant's 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. 4. 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 5. The evidence of record show the applicant served in Vietnam. The VA medical records he provided show that 47 years after he was discharged, he reported symptoms related to PTSD as a result from being in combat. 6. The applicant contends his mental health problems mitigated the misconduct for which he was punished and separated. His record is absent evidence of any indiscipline prior to his tour in Vietnam. The evidence of record confirms he committed the misconduct during and after returning from Vietnam. 7. The applicant contends he was offered an undesirable discharge and that he took it to get as far away as possible. Evidence of record confirms his commander requested the involuntary administrative discharge while he was confined; the separation was not a choice made by the applicant. 8. An ARBA advisory opinion concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support his contention of mental-health considerations that are supportive of a change to the character of the discharge in this case. A nexus between the applicant's misconduct and his mental-health was discovered. 9. An 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 for Army personnel. An under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service is appropriate for those Soldiers whose military record is satisfactory, but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 10. The applicant's record of indiscipline that included NJP, several instances of AWOL, and three court-martials suggest his overall service did not rise to the level of a fully honorable characterization of service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150016310 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160012487 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2