DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY 251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE 385 ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531 SAMR-RB 15 September 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Human Resources Command, 1600 Spearhead Division Avenue, Department 100, Fort Knox, KY 40122-5100 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for AR20160013875 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 15 August 2017, in which a majority of the Board members recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be given consideration by a Special Selection Board in accordance with the FY16, Captain, ACC promotion board criteria. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 15 January 2018. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: µe - t.#:uL -- Encl Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013875 BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ___x_____ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x_____ ___x_____ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013875 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 August 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160013875 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: * the removal of a U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) * reinstatement on the Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) Captain (CPT), Army Competitive Category (ACC) Promotion Selection List (PSL) * retroactive promotion to CPT consistent with his peers 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. A CID ROI is impeding his promotion to CPT. The CID investigation occurred in 2005 while he was deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) III. b. The CID investigation was closed, and to his knowledge, it ended; no one was found guilty of any wrongdoing. However, 11 years later, he was told that due to the CID investigation and the inclusion of his name as a part of that investigation, the Secretary of the Army was removing him from the promotion selection list. Additionally, he was informed that he would not be allowed to attend the CPT's career course, his branch transfer would be revoked, and he would undergo separation proceedings. c. He believes this is a mistake that can be corrected. He was a sergeant (SGT) at the time of the CID investigation. All parties involved in the investigation were cleared; however, he is now being punished for an 11-year-old incident in which no one was ever accused of wrong doing. To remove him the promotion list is one thing; however, revoking his voluntary transfer incentive program (VTIP), cancelling his CPT career course attendance, and initiating separation proceedings seems a bit much. 3. The applicant provides a copy of CID ROI 0063-2005-CID-2XX-3XXX6-5C1R2/6X1/5X5/5M3/5Y2D/5Y2E, dated 24 October 2005. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 April 2002. He completed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19K (M1 Armor Crewman). He twice deployed in support of OIF, from 9 January 2005 through 5 January 2006 and from 16 December 2009 through 11 December 2010. 2. CID ROI 0063-2005-CID-2XX-3XXX6-5C1R2/6X1/5X5/5M3/5Y2D/5Y2E, dated 24 October 2005, shows that the applicant was investigated for aggravated assault, cruelty and maltreatment, conspiracy, and obstructing justice. a. On or about 9 March 2005, CID was notified of alleged detainee abuse. A review of a commander's inquiry indicated there was a total of five individuals who were detained, all of whom sustained injuries. b. The investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant and other named individuals committed the offenses of aggravated assault, cruelty and maltreatment of the detainees, by beating them at Reaper Patrol Base. The detainees were captured by U.S. Coalition Forces on 27 February 2005 and subsequently transported to Reaper Patrol Base. Upon arrival, the victims (who were all blindfolded and handcuffed behind their backs) were removed from the vehicles and subsequently hit, kicked, and struck with a flashlight, causing numerous injuries. After the incident, the victims were transported for detainment and questioning. All but two of the victims were released the following day. c. The investigation further established probable cause to believe the applicant and other named individuals committed the offenses of conspiracy and obstructing justice on 28 February 2005 when they attended an impromptu meeting and formulated a "story" to cover the injuries, which they subsequently told to the investigating officer. d. The investigation was terminated after an acting commander or prosecutor indicated intent either to take no action against the subjects or to take action amounting to less than a court proceeding, requiring no further investigative assistance of CID by the commander or prosecutor. e. This CID ROI currently resides in the restricted folder of the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF). 3. A DA Form 4833 (Commander's Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action), dated 16 December 2005, shows the applicant's commander found him guilty of dereliction in the performance of his duties (failure to safeguard a detainee). The commander acknowledged he took non-judicial action by giving the applicant an oral reprimand/admonition. 4. After serving seven more years after the incident, the applicant was honorably released from active duty on 22 August 2012. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 16-1a, after accepting a commission or warrant in the Army. He was separated in the rank/grade of sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7. 5. A DA Form 71 (Oath of Office – Military Personnel) shows the applicant was appointed in the Regular Army as a commissioned officer and executed an oath of office on 23 August 2012. 6. Order Number 021-003, issued by U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) on 21 January 2014, promoted the applicant to the rank of first lieutenant (1LT), with a date of rank and effective date of 23 February 2014. 7. On 30 March 2015, the applicant was selected for promotion to CPT by the FY15 CPT, ACC Promotion Selection Board. 8. A DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions (Flag)), dated 1 October 2015, shows HRC initiated the applicant's removal from the promotion selection list and flagged the applicant's record, effective 18 August 2015. 9. An HRC memorandum, dated 12 November 2015, subject: Delay of Promotion and Referral to a Promotion Review Board (PRB), shows the applicant was notified that a post-board screening process elected to delay his promotion to CPT because of the CID ROI, dated 24 October 2015. He was notified that the PRB would recommend one or more of the following actions to the Secretary of the Army: * that he be retained on the promotion list * that his name be removed from the promotion list * that he show cause for retention on active duty 10. The applicant furnished a rebuttal to the PRB on 16 November 2015, stating he was confused how his promotion to CPT could be impeded, given that he passed the following: * he obtained a secret clearance in 2007 * he became an Army Career Counselor in 2008 * he was selected for promotion to SFC in 2011 * he was selected for officer candidate school (OCS) in 2011 * he was granted a top secret clearance in 2012 * he was commissioned as a lieutenant in 2012 * he was promoted to 1LT in 2014 * he was selected for promotion to CPT in 2015 11. The PRB considered his rebuttal and recommended that his name be removed from the promotion list and that he show cause for retention on active duty. Following the PRB's recommendation, the Secretary of the Army directed his removal from the FY15 CPT ACC PSL and further directed HRC to initiate elimination proceedings. 12. A DA Form 268, dated 17 June 2015, shows that the elimination or removal from selection list flag previously placed on the applicant's record was removed as "case closed unfavorably." HRC notified him of the PRB results on 20 June 2016. 13. The applicant appeared before a Board of Inquiry on 27 January 2017, which considered him for separation from the Army prior to the expiration of his term of service for conduct unbecoming of an officer. The board carefully considered all of the evidence admitted before it and found: * the allegation of conduct unbecoming of an officer, in the notification of proposed separation, was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence * the findings did not warrant separation * in view of the findings, the board recommended that he be retained in the U.S. Army 14. The Board of Inquiry notified HRC of their findings on 6 February 2017, recommending HRC approve their findings to retain the applicant; he was subsequently retained in the U.S. Army. 15. The applicant notified the ABCMR, via email on 11 July 2017, that he was denied a request to remove the CID ROI from his record. He acknowledged he was informed that since he was a part of the initial CID investigation that CID would only grant a removal of the record had there been a mistake in identity. 16. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained on 31 March 2017, from the Chief, Officer Promotions and Special Actions, HRC. The advisory official opined: a. Their office reviewed the case and can offer no opinion to its merit for reinstatement. They do not have the authority to question, overrule or overturn the Secretary of the Army's decision to remove him from the FY15 CPT ACC PSL. b. Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires the Army to certify that all officers submitted for promotion meet the exemplary conduct provisions of Title 10, Subsection 3583, and Army Directive 2016-26. In order for the Secretary of the Army, or his designated representative, to certify exemplary conduct, he or she must be apprised of any adverse information contained in the official files maintained by CID, the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG), and the Army Military Human Resource Records. c. They can only conclude that the Secretary of the Army elected to remove the applicant from the FY15 CPT ACC PSL based on his review of the applicant's case file. They recommend ARBA contact the Secretary of the Army (if deemed appropriate) for any compromise or adjustment for relief as it relates to reinstatement and promotion per the applicant's request. d. If and when their office receives an official directive to reinstate and promote the applicant, they will (unless proven otherwise ineligible). Any associated back pay and allowances will only occur upon a favorable directive. 17. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 11 April 2017, to provide him an opportunity to comment and/or submit a rebuttal. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 195-2 (Criminal Investigation Activities) prescribes responsibilities, mission, objectives, and policies pertaining to the Army Criminal Investigation Program. Chapter 4 contains guidance for investigative records, files, and reports. a. Paragraph 4-4 contains guidance for individual requests for access to or amendment of CID ROI's. It states that requests to amend CID ROI's will be considered only under the provisions of this regulation. b. Paragraph 4-4b states requests for amendment of a CID ROI will be granted only if the individual submits new, relevant, and material facts that are determined to warrant revision of the report. The burden of proof to substantiate the request rests with the individual. Requests to delete a person's name from the title block will be granted if it is determined that credible information did not exist to believe the individual committed the offense for which titled as a subject at the time the investigation was initiated or the wrong person's name has been entered as a result of mistaken identity. The decision to list a person's name in the title block of a CID ROI is an investigative determination that is independent of judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative action taken against the individual or the results of such action. Within these parameters, the decision to make any changes in the report rests within the sole discretion of the CG, CID. The decision will constitute final action on behalf of the Secretary of the Army with respect to requests for amendment under this regulation. 2. DOD Instruction (DODI) 5505.7 contains the authority and criteria for titling decisions and states that titling only requires credible information that an offense may have been committed. It states that regardless of the characterization of the offense as founded, unfounded, or insufficient in evidence, the only way to administratively remove a titling action from the DCII is to show either mistaken identity or a complete lack of credible evidence to dispute the initial titling determination. a. Titling ensures investigators can retrieve information in an ROI of suspected criminal activity at some future time for law enforcement and security purposes. Whether or not to title is an operational decision made by investigative officials, rather than a legal determination made by attorneys. b. Titling or indexing (in the DCII) alone does not denote any degree of guilt or innocence. Information is deemed credible if, "considering the source and nature of the information and the totality of the circumstances, it is sufficiently believable to indicate criminal activity has occurred and would cause a reasonable investigator under similar circumstances to pursue further facts of the case to determine whether a criminal act occurred or may have occurred." The criteria for titling are a determination that credible information exists that a person: may have committed a criminal offense or is otherwise made the object of a criminal investigation. 3. DODI 5505.7 contains further legal guidance. a. Section 6.1. Organizations engaged in the conduct of criminal investigations shall place the names and identifying information pertaining to subjects of criminal investigations in title blocks of investigative reports. All names of individual subjects of criminal investigations by DOD organizations shall be listed in DCII. (This Instruction does not preclude the titling and indexing of victims or "incidentals" associated with criminal investigations.) Titling and indexing in the DCII shall be done as early in the investigation as it is determined that credible information exists that the subject committed a criminal offense. b. Section 6.3. The DOD standard that shall be applied when titling and indexing subjects of criminal investigations is a determination that credible information exists indicating the subject committed a criminal offense. c. Section 6.6. Once the subject of a criminal investigation is indexed, the name shall remain in the DCII even if a later finding is made that the subject did not commit the offense under investigation, subject to the following exceptions: (1) Section 6.6.1. Identifying information about the subject of a criminal investigation shall be removed from the title block of a report of investigation and DCII in the case of mistaken identity; i.e., the wrong person's name was placed in the ROI as a subject or entered into the DCII. (2) Section 6.6.2. Identifying information about the subject of a criminal investigation shall be removed from the title block of an ROI and the DCII if it is later determined a mistake was made at the time the titling and/or indexing occurred in that credible information indicating that the subject committed a crime did not exist. d. Section 6.9. When reviewing the appropriateness of a titling/indexing decision, the reviewing official shall consider the investigative information available at the time the initial titling decision was made to determine whether the decision was made in accordance with the standard stated in paragraph 6.3. 4. DODI 5505.7 also provides the following definitions: a. E1.1.1 – Credible Information: Information disclosed or obtained by an investigator that, considering the source and nature of the information and the totality of the circumstances, is sufficiently believable to lead a trained investigator to presume that the fact or facts are true. b. E1.1.2 – Criminal Investigation: Investigation into alleged or apparent violations of law undertaken for purposes which include the collection of evidence in support of potential criminal prosecution. c. E1.1.3 – DCII: A centralized database, organized in a searchable format, of selected unique identifying information and security clearance data utilized by security and investigative agencies in the DOD, as well as selected other Federal agencies, to determine security clearance status and the existence/physical location of criminal and personnel security investigative files. The DCII database is physically maintained by the Defense Security Service; however, the data it contains is the responsibility of the contributing agencies. d. E1.1.4 – Incidental: Any person or entity associated with a matter under investigation whose identity may be of subsequent value for law enforcement or security purposes. e. E1.1.5 – Indexing: Refers to the procedure whereby an organization responsible for conducting criminal investigations submits identifying information concerning subjects, victims, or incidentals of investigations for addition to the DCII. f. E1.1.6 – Subject: A person, corporation, or other legal entity about which credible information exists that would cause a trained investigator to presume that the person, corporation, or other legal entity committed a criminal offense. g. E1.1.7 – Title Block: Portion of an investigative report used to identify the persons, entities, or activities on which the investigation focuses. h. E1.1.8 – Titling: Placing the name(s) of person(s), corporation(s), other legal entity, organization(s), or occurrence(s) in the title block of a criminal investigative report. 5. Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges) provides that elimination action may be initiated by the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Staff, and such officials in their offices as are designated by them. a. A Board of Inquiry's purpose is to give the officer a fair and impartial hearing determining if the officer will be retained in the Army. Through a formal administrative investigation conducted under Army Regulation 15-6 and this regulation, the Board of Inquiry establishes and records the facts of the Respondent’s alleged misconduct, substandard performance of duty, or conduct incompatible with military service. Based upon the findings of fact established by its investigation and recorded in its report, the board then makes a recommendation for the officer’s disposition, consistent with this regulation. The Government is responsible to establish, by preponderance of the evidence that the officer has failed to maintain the standards desired for their grade and branch or that the officer’s Secret-level security clearance has been permanently denied or revoked by appropriate authorities. In the absence of such a showing by the Government, the board will retain the officer. However, the respondent is entitled to produce evidence to show cause for his retention and to refute the allegations against him. The Respondent’s complete (OMPF) will be entered in evidence by the Government and considered by the Board of Inquiry. b. The Board of Inquiry determines its findings and recommendation by secret written ballot in closed session, with a majority vote deciding any issue. (1) Based on the evidence (presented at the hearings), the board will make a separate finding (including a brief statement) on each factual allegation and reason for involuntary separation. The Board will render findings of fact, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that describe specific relevant conduct by the Respondent in sufficient detail to support the Board’s recommendation. The findings will address each separate reason for separation and each separate factual allegation. The Board may choose to address mitigating, extenuating or aggravating factors in its findings where the Board believes that such findings are necessary to support or explain the Board’s recommendation. The board may (based on the evidence) present findings that amend or specify new allegations. However, new allegations must support a reason for elimination that was included in the findings of the selection board or in the officer’s notification memorandum. The board may recommend retention (with or without reassignment) or involuntary separation. The board will include the type of discharge certificate and characterization to issue, when elimination is recommended (and the officer is not retirement eligible (10 USC 3911)) for misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interest of national security. (2) The board may not recommend removal of documents such as office evaluation reports (OERs), Article 15s, and Memoranda of Reprimand from an officer’s OMPF. The board recommendations are limited to either retention (with or without reassignment) or elimination. 6. Army Directive 2016-26 (Screening Requirements for Adverse and Reportable Information for Promotion and Federal Recognition to Colonel and Below) provides procedures for screening and reviewing adverse and reportable information for promotion and Federal recognition to the grades of colonel and below to ensure that the Army complies with governing law and policy, as outlined in Title 10, U.S. Code, section 3583 (reference 1a) and DoD Instruction 1320.04 (reference 1b). This directive also adds or revises related policies for the promotion and separation of Army officers. a. When considering a Secretary of Defense appointment to the next higher grade, the Secretary of the Army may exempt adverse information considered during an earlier Secretary of Defense appointment to the next higher grade. b. A post-board screening is defined as a review of official records to ascertain any adverse and reportable information concerning an officer recommended for promotion to the next higher grade. A post-board screening will include, but is not limited to, information filed at U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Department of the Army Inspector General, and the restricted portion of the Army Military Human Resource Record. The Director of Military Personnel Management is responsible for initiating a post-board screening. c. A board convened at Headquarters, Department of the Army will review any derogatory information from the post-board screening and advise the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 or designee (normally the Director of Military Personnel Management (DMPM)) whether the information is substantiated, relevant, and might reasonably and materially affect a promotion recommendation. An officer with adverse or reportable information that might reasonably and materially affect a promotion recommendation may not meet exemplary conduct requirements for promotion and may be recommended for a delay in promotion and referred to a promotion review board. 7. Army Regulation 600-8-29 (Officer Promotions) provides for the managing of promotion review boards. a. Paragraph 8-1 provides that the President, or his designee, may remove the name of an officer, in a grade above second lieutenant, from a list of officers recommended for promotion by a selection board (10 USC 629(a)). This authority has been delegated to the Secretary of the Army. PRBs are used to advise the Secretary of the Army in any case in which there is cause to believe that a commissioned or warrant officer on a promotion list is mentally, physically, morally, or professionally unqualified or unsuited to perform the duties of the grade for which he or she was selected for promotion. In such instances, a PRB may also be conducted when an officer’s name appears on a report of a selection board, although the Secretary’s final decision or recommendation may not be made until the report is approved by the President or his authorized designee. An officer, in a grade above second lieutenant, is considered to be on a promotion list when the officer’s name appears on a report of a promotion selection board which has been approved by the President or his authorized designee. b. Paragraph 8-10 provides: (1) An officer whose name is removed from a promotion list continues to be eligible for consideration for promotion under 10 USC 629(c) and 579(c). The next regular selection board convened to consider officers for promotion to that grade and competitive category will consider the officer (if otherwise eligible), provided this removal action does not constitute the officer’s second nonselection for separation purposes. If the next board does not recommend promotion, this will constitute the officer’s second nonselection. (2) If the next board recommends promotion, the officer may petition the Secretary of the Army to be granted the same date of rank and position on the active duty list the officer would have had if the officer’s name had not been removed from the promotion list. (3) If the next selection board that considers an officer in a grade below colonel does not recommend the officer for promotion, or if the officer’s name is again removed (either from the report of the selection board or from the promotion list), or, in the case of promotion to grades above captain, the Senate does not give its advice and consent to the promotion, the officer will be considered for all purposes to have twice failed selection for promotion. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests the removal of a CID ROI from his OMPF, his reinstatement on the FY15 CPT, ACC PSL, and his retroactive promotion to CPT consistent with his peers. 2. The applicant contends he believes this is a mistake that can be corrected. He was a SGT when he was part of a CID investigation, where all parties involved within the investigation were cleared; however, he is now being punished for an 11-year-old incident in which no one was ever accused of wrong doing. 3. CID agents were notified and reported alleged detainee abuse that listed the applicant as a subject in March 2005. The Final CID ROI shows the investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offenses of aggravated assault, cruelty and maltreatment, conspiracy, and obstructing justice. 4. The applicant contends all parties were cleared of any wrongdoing. However, evidence of record shows his commander prepared a DA Form 4833 that reflects the applicant was found guilty of dereliction in the performance of his duty and was given an oral reprimand/abomination. He was serving in the rank of SGT at the time of the offense and achieved the rank of SFC prior to his honorable release from active duty. Upon separation, he subsequently became a Regular Army commissioned officer. 5. Titling or indexing on CID reports does not denote any degree of guilt or innocence. If there is a reason to investigate, the subject of the investigation should be titled. This is a very low standard of proof, requiring only the merest scintilla of evidence far below the burdens of proof normally borne by the government in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt), in adverse administrative decisions (preponderance of evidence), and in searches (probable cause). 6. The CID ROI shows there was credible information regarding the applicant's involvement in the alleged offense. As a result, he was properly titled. Based on the CID investigation, it is clear that there was ample credible information obtained by investigators that – considering the source and the nature of the information and the totality of the circumstances – was sufficiently believable to lead a trained investigator to presume the fact or facts in question were true at the time the titling and indexing decision was rendered. The titling decision does not appear to be in error; the report can only be removed if there was a mistake in the applicant's identity. 7. The applicant was promoted to the rank of 1LT after serving as a second lieutenant for 18 months. He was later selected for promotion to CPT by the FY15 CPT ACC Promotion Selection Board on 30 March 2015. 8. CID and DAIG records, as well as the officer's OMPF, are screened for derogatory information upon selection for promotion to CPT and above. After a post-board screening of the applicant's records, and receiving the recommendations of the PRB, the Secretary of the Army directed his removal from the PSL and directed his elimination on 17 June 2016. 9. Army Directive 2016-26 does not specify a statute of limitations when considering derogatory information found in a Soldier's record. The post-board screening process and the PRB was performed administratively correct and in conformance with applicable laws and regulations. There is no indication that his removal from the FY15 CPT ACC PSL was in error or unjust. 10. On 27 January 2017, a Board of Inquiry found that the allegation of conduct unbecoming of an officer was not supported by a preponderance of evidence, and recommended the applicant's retention in the Army. The Board of Inquiry findings and recommendation were approved. 11. The Board of Inquiry's recommendations are limited to either retention (with or without reassignment) or elimination; they are not authorized to reinstate his promotion status. 12. An advisory opinion was provided by HRC in reference to the applicant's request for reinstatement on the CPT PSL. The advisory official stated they could offer no opinion on the merit for reinstatement. However, HRC noted they will reinstate and promote him if directed. 13. The governing regulation provides that an officer whose name is removed from a promotion list continues to be eligible for consideration for promotion by the next regular selection board. If he is selected for promotion to CPT by the next board, he is allowed to petition the Secretary of the Army to have his date of rank adjusted, commensurate with CPTs promoted from the FY15 CPT ACC PSL. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000160 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160013875 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2