BOARD DATE: 26 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000531 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _____x___ ____x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 26 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000531 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130015564 on 2 July 2014. ______________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: 26 September 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000531 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 reconsideration of his earlier request for correction of his records as follows: * setting aside his punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL), thereby restoring his rank and forfeiture of pay * expunging the criminal charge from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), the Defense Central Investigations Index (DCII), and National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) records * changing the narrative reason of his discharge to show he was separated due to medical disability 2. He also requests a personal hearing with his spouse before the Board. 3. The applicant previously stated that his punishment and subsequent discharge were unjust because he had a nervous breakdown on 5 April 1965 which resulted from a buildup of conditions that started on 4 June 1964 involving a rocket misfire and culminated with the death of his prematurely born son. There was lack of compassion and assistance provided by the Army, particularly from his commanding officer, and the medical records and statements provided bear this out. He did not know the real reason he was discharged from the service and for many years he thought it was for hardship reasons. He wants his case reconsidered. He is now providing new evidence and argument that were not previously considered by the Board. He wants his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) records entered as evidence. His wife would also like to testify. He wants to present his case before the Board. He consulted with three experienced military lawyers and they all assured him that he has a good case. However, he cannot afford the expense and is left to do this on his own. 4. The applicant provides no additional evidence. 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 (ABCMR) in Docket Number ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130015564 on 2 July 2014. 2. The applicant does not provide his VA records, but they were reviewed online by the Army Review Boards Agency psychiatrist during a medical review of his application. He also provides a new argument. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 18 November 1963 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 112 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman). He was assigned to Fort Gordon, GA, and he was advanced to private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 23 July 1964. 4. He was honorably discharged on 22 December 1964 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 1 year, 1 month, and 5 days of active service. 5. He reenlisted in the RA on 23 December 1964. He was reassigned to the 4th Enlisted Training Company, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 6. The applicant previously submitted various documents (personal statement, medical documents, hospital admission documents, funeral expenses receipt, and psychiatric evaluation) as indicated and then detailed in his original submission. Of note is a memorandum from a psychiatrist in the Department of Neuropsychiatry, Walter Reed General Hospital, dated 19 April 1965, subject: Report of Psychiatric Evaluation for Administrative Separation, a summary of his medical history, physical, and mental examination. a. The applicant's condition was part of a character and behavior disorder due to deficiencies in emotional and personality development of such degree as to render him unsuitable for further military service. This condition was not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification. b. There were no physical or mental disabilities sufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). 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. While the final decision regarding disposition in his case rests with his command, appropriate administrative separation from the service was recommended. 7. On 27 April 1965, at a closed hearing, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being AWOL from 2300 hours on 21 April to 22 April 1965. His punishment consisted of a reduction to private (PV2)/E-2, 14 days of restriction, and 14 days of extra duty. The applicant was advised of his right to appeal but he elected not to do so. This NJP is filed in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ). 8. On 27 April 1965, the 4th Enlisted Training Company, U.S. Army Ordnance Center and School, Aberdeen Proving Ground, published Unit Orders Number 10 reducing the applicant from PFC/E-3 to PV2/E-2 effective 27 April 1965 as a result of misconduct. Records show he was taken to the U.S. Public Health Hospital in Detroit on 5 April 1965 after passing out at the airport while on his way back from leave. He was transferred to Walter Reed General Hospital (Washington, DC) on 9 April 1965 and was released to his company on 21 April 1965. He went AWOL that same day (21 April 1965). 9. On 27 April 1965, separate from the imposition of NJP, the applicant's unit commander notified him he was potentially pending separation for unsuitability under the provisions of AR 635-209 (Personnel Separations – Discharge – Inaptitude or Unsuitability). He stated the applicant was granted 6 days of emergency leave due to the death of his prematurely born child. As the applicant was preparing to return to duty, he was hospitalized and then transferred to Walter Reed General Hospital. On 21 April 1965 the applicant was released from the hospital and should have reported to his unit in Maryland that same day. The applicant went AWOL instead. He was scheduled to attend the Aircraft Armament Repairman Course. The commander noted the applicant's conduct was unsatisfactory, that he had not been court-martialed, and that he had received one NJP for being AWOL. 10. On the same date, the applicant acknowledged he had been counseled and advised of the recommended action. He received a copy of the commanding officer's report and copies of all statements submitted as evidence with a list of names of persons who may make a statement against him or who may testify against him. He further acknowledged he had been afforded an opportunity to request counsel and declined this right. He also declined an opportunity to have his case heard by a board of officers and to make a statement in his own behalf. He added that he voluntarily signed this statement of his own free will and authenticated the document with his signature. 11. The unit commander recommended the applicant's discharge for unsuitability under the provisions of AR 635-209. He noted the applicant was granted 6 days of emergency leave on 29 March 1965 because of the death of his child. He was taken to the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital in Detroit on 5 April after passing out at the airport while on his way back (to his unit) from leave. He was transferred to Walter Reed Army Hospital on 9 April 1965 and was released to his unit on 21 April 1965. He was AWOL on 21 April to 22 April 1965. The intermediate commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation with the issuance of a general discharge. 12. The separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of AR 635-209 by reason of unsuitability due to character and behavior disorders with separation program number (SPN) 264. He directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 12 May 1965. 13. The applicant's DD Form 214 for this period of service shows he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-209 with Separation Program Number (SPN) 264 for unsuitability, personality disorder. He completed 4 months and 20 days of active service this period and he was credited with 1 year, 1 month, and 5 days of prior active duty service. His DD Form 214 also shows in: * Item 3a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – Private, E-2 (Permanent) * Item 3b (Date of Rank) – 27 April 1965 14. The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. He contended that he was young and immature at the time of his discharge and had absolutely no idea of the significance a general discharge would have on his future. On 22 October 1980, the ADRB notified him that the Secretary of the Army directed an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. Accordingly, he was issued a new DD Form 214 and an Honorable Discharge Certificate. Reviewing his "corrected" DD Form 214, his rank was not restored to PFC/E-3. 15. His reissued DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AR 635-209 with separation program designator code JMB for unsuitability – personality disorder. This DD Form 214 shows in the remarks block his discharge was upgraded on 6 August 1980. His upgraded DD Form 214 also shows in: * Item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – private * Item 4b (Pay Grade) – E-2 * Item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) – 27  April 1965 16. In the processing of this current application and as required by law, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychiatrist conducted a review of the applicant's case, evidence and then rendered an advisory opinion on 17 January 2017. The psychiatrist referenced the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th Edition; AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) with revisions, dated 4 August 2011; and AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), dated 6 September 2011. a. The Agency psychiatrist restated the applicant’s military history, to include his applications to the ABCMR. b. Documentation reviewed by the psychiatrist includes the applicant’s ABCMR application, his personal statement, his previous ABCMR Record of Proceedings, civilian medical documentation and his military records. The VA electronic medical records (Joint Legacy Viewer) was also reviewed. c. In his personal statement, the applicant states he had a nervous breakdown in April 1965 which was related to a rocket misfire in June 1964. According to the applicant, he was involved in a training accident in which an unexploded rocket exploded when he and his sergeant approached it. The applicant reports that the explosion caused him to have shrapnel burns on his face, hands and arms. Because of this event, he was afraid to return to work and he began drinking. Despite this traumatic event, he reenlisted because he and his wife needed the reenlistment bonus. His wife subsequently delivered a premature baby who did not survive. The applicant reports he had a nervous breakdown because of this, which resulted in his hospitalization at a U.S. Public Health Service Hospital with subsequent transfer to Walter Reed General Hospital. The applicant contends he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time, which was not treated or recognized by the military. d. A review of the civilian documentation provided by the applicant (with his 2013 application) shows it consists of a letter dated 5 April 2000 written by Da-- Wi--, PhD, clinical psychologist, Knoxville, Tennessee. In this letter, Dr. Wi-- states that the applicant suffers from long standing chronic depression and generalized anxiety. He feels these problems were present when the applicant was in the Army. He believes the applicant had an undiagnosed severe mood disorder when he went into the Army. He had diagnosed the applicant with major depressive disorder. e. A review of the VA medical records indicates the applicant is 70 percent service connected for major depressive disorder and 10 percent service connected for tinnitus. The VA added the diagnosis of PTSD to the applicant’s problem list on 24 October 2005. Review of the VA records indicates that the majority of the applicant’s Behavioral Health visits are for treatment of depression. A history of prior suicide attempts is also documented in his VA records. f. A review of the military medical record shows: (1) A medical progress note indicates the applicant was hospitalized at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital in Detroit, MI on 4 April 1965 with subsequent transfer to Walter Reed General Hospital on 12 April 1965. The transfer diagnosis was "Acute Situational Reaction." (2) The Psychiatric Narrative Summary dated 12 April 1965 and written by a psychiatrist, indicates the following: (a) The applicant's chief complaint was "I can't make a go of the Army." (b) In the "Present Illness" section of this document, the applicant states that his pregnant wife became ill one week prior to his hospitalization and ended up losing the baby and suffering from an infection. The applicant reports that his leave ran out and his commanding officer refused to extend it. He reports that when he got to the airport, he had a nervous breakdown with shaking, crying and confusion. He was hospitalized at the Public Health hospital and subsequently transferred to Walter Reed General Hospital. At Walter Reed, he explained to hospital staff that he had a hardship discharge pending. (c) His Mental Examination noted that, while hospitalized at Walter Reed, the applicant related "in a markedly puerile fashion, alternately supercilious and condescending and sarcastic, or excessively demanding and manipulative or again, ingratiating and hyper-sincere." He was found to be "…deliberately evasive on many details; he often gave conflicting data… affect was somewhat shallow but not constricted; it was appropriate to his mood of overt hostility… insight was limited…" (d) In the Hospital Course section of the narrative summary, it was noted that the applicant – was initially admitted to the Closed Psychiatric Ward for intensive observation which revealed he ate and slept normally and related in a variety of manners which were all immature, as described in the 'Mental Examination.' He was quite adept at gaining an audience of other patients and student nurses to spend all their time listening to his tale of woe. He was moved to the Open Ward on his second hospital day, where he made a similar adjustment. Throughout his hospital course, he was quite manipulative and demanding of special passes, leaves and other favors. (e) His discharge diagnosis was "personality disorder, passive aggressiveness, chronic, moderate, and manifested by stubbornness, procrastination, passive obstructionism, pouting, marked immaturity and manipulative practices, undependability of judgement under stress and limited insight and judgment… Line of Duty (LOD): No; Existed Prior to Service (ETPS): Yes." (f) The recommendation was – …while the final decision must be taken at a command level, the patient is to be administratively separated under the appropriate regulation as expeditiously as possible for the convenience of the government and his own benefit. There are no disqualifying defects of physical or mental nature sufficient to warrant his disposition through medical channels. He is mentally responsible. This condition is not amenable to psychiatric therapies, neither to retraining, reclassification, nor to punishment. (3) A Psychiatric Memorandum dated 19 April 1965 is also contained in his military records. This memorandum is from the Department of Neuropsychiatry at Walter Reed General Hospital and is directed to the applicant’s commanding officer. The memorandum states the applicant's – …condition is part of a character and behavior disorder due to deficiencies in emotional and personality development of such degree as to render him unsuitable for further military service. This condition is not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type of duty. There is no physical or mental disability sufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of AR 635-40a and b. Subject was and is mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in the board proceedings. While the final decision regarding disposition in this case rests with his command, appropriate administrative separation from the service is recommended. The memorandum is signed by both the applicant's treating psychiatrist and the chief of the hospital psychiatry service. g. The civilian and VA medical documentation notwithstanding, review of the available service records in the applicant's file does not support the applicant's contention that the behaviors which resulted in his discharge from the Army were due to PTSD or another Behavioral Health condition and not due to a personality disorder. Review of the applicant's record indicates that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably establish a diagnosis of in-service PTSD. There is also insufficient evidence to reasonably establish an in-service diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The record, however, does support the diagnosis of personality disorder. The Psychiatric Memorandum, dated 19 April 1965, which was written by the applicant's treating psychiatrist and cosigned by the Chief of the Psychiatric Service at Walter Reed General Hospital, clearly states that the applicant met military medical retention standards: "There is no physical or mental disability sufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of AR 635-40a and b." h. The applicant has stated that he wants his narrative reason for separation changed to reflect a "medical disability." Review of his VA medical documentation indicates that the applicant has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and PTSD by the VA and he has been found 70 percent service connected for major depressive disorder. While these VA documents support the applicant's post service diagnosis of major depressive disorder and PTSD, they do not provide evidence of an in-service major depressive disorder or PTSD diagnosis. It is important to understand that the VA operates under different rules, laws and regulations when assigning disability percentages than the Department of Defense (DOD). In essence, the VA will compensate for all disabilities felt to be unsuiting. The DOD, however, does not compensate for unsuiting conditions. It only compensates for unfitting conditions (conditions not meeting medical retention standards). The applicant's condition was not felt to be unfitting when he was on active duty as indicated by the fact he was found to meet military medical retention standards. i. It is also important to note that DOD does not compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions that were incurred during active military service. This is a role reserved for the VA. j. Based on the information available for review at this time, there is insufficient evidence to support changing the applicant's narrative reason for discharge from "Personality Disorder" to "Medical Disability." Additionally, review of the applicant's available service treatment records indicates that the applicant did not suffer from a medically unfitting condition and met medical retention standards while on active duty. Accordingly, a referral of his record into the physical disability evaluation system is not warranted. 18. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion to give him an opportunity to submit a rebuttal and/or comments. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. AR 15-185 (ABCMR) states ABCMR members will review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of an error or injustice; direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice, if persuaded that material error or injustice exists and that sufficient evidence exists on the record. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing. Applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. 2. AR 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action would be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability only when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability. Unsuitability included character and behavior disorders. 3. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) superseded Army Regulation 635-209. It was revised on 1 December 1976 following settlement of a civil suit. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment. 4. AR 27-10 (Military Justice) states commanders may impose nonjudicial punishment for the administration of discipline under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ. Reduction in grade is listed among the punishments commanders are authorized to impose under the provisions of Article 15. This regulation also stipulates that only one appeal is permissible under Article 15 proceedings. An appeal not made within a reasonable time may be rejected as untimely by the superior authority. 5. AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) provides that Soldiers may be reduced in rank and grade as a result of misconduct in violation of the UCMJ. 6. AR 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) provides policies, operating tasks, and steps governing the OMPF. The OMPF is defined as permanent documentation within the Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) that documents facts related to a Soldier during the course of his or her entire Army career, from time of accession into the Army until final separation, discharge, or retirement. The purpose of the OMPF is to preserve permanent documents pertaining to enlistment, appointment, duty stations, assignments, training, qualifications, performance, awards, medals, disciplinary actions, insurance, emergency data, separation, retirement, casualty, and any other personnel actions. 7. AR 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to authorize placement of unfavorable information about Army members in individual official personnel files; ensure that unfavorable information that is unsubstantiated, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete is not filed in individual official personnel files; and ensure that the best interests of both the Army and the Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in and, when appropriate, removed from official personnel files. a. Chapter 7 provides the policies and procedures for appeals and petitions for removal of unfavorable information from the OMPF. b. Paragraph 7-2 states that once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature that the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered. 8. AR 195-2 (Criminal Investigation Activities) contains the authority and criteria for titling decisions. It states titling only requires credible information that an offense may have been committed. Regardless of the characterization of the offense as founded, unfounded, or insufficient evidence, the only way to administratively remove a titling action from the DCII is to show either mistaken identity or there is a complete lack of credible evidence to dispute the initial titling determination. 9. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. It provides for medical evaluation boards (MEB's), which are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status. A decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501, chapter 3. 10. AR 635-40 states the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his office, rank, grade or rating. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before that service member can be medically separated or retired. Chapter 3 states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of a service incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for a personal appearance hearing was carefully considered. However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the ABCMR. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the ABCMR or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 2. With respect to the Article 15: a. The evidence of record confirms, following the applicant's absence from duty, the commander administering the Article 15 proceedings determined the applicant committed the offense in question during a closed Article 15 hearing. He considered all the evidence submitted. By law and regulation, before finding a Soldier guilty during Article 15 proceedings, the commander must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Soldier committed the offense. b. The evidence of record confirms the applicant waived his right to a trial by court-martial and opted for a closed Article 15 hearing. The imposing commander found him guilty and the resultant punishment consisted of his reduction to E-2. He was advised of his right to appeal but elected not to do so. There is no evidence of record and the applicant provides insufficient evidence to show that his DA Form 2627 is untrue or unjust. c. The ABCMR does not normally reexamine issues of guilt or innocence under Article 15 of the UCMJ. This is the imposing commander's function and it will not be upset by the ABCMR unless the commander's determination is clearly unsupported by the evidence. The applicant was provided a defense attorney, he was given the right to demand trial by court-martial, and he was afforded the opportunity to appeal the Article 15 through the proper channels. d. He did not provide any evidence to prove his Article 15 was untrue or unjust. The argument he now presents appears insufficient to change the determination of guilt made by the commander in 1965. His dissatisfaction with the outcome of this Article 15 does not invalidate it. He knowingly violated the UCMJ and he was punished for it. e. The basis for any set aside action is a determination that, under all the circumstances of the case, the punishment resulted in a clear injustice. "Clear injustice" means that there exists an unwaived legal or factual error that clearly and affirmatively injured the rights of the Soldier. 3. It appears the applicant's Article 15 is correctly filed in his MPRJ (also known as the 201 File and now known as the OMPF). a. The purpose of maintaining the OMPF is to protect the interests of the Army and the Soldier. In this regard, the OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, evaluation periods, and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF. b. By regulation, in order to remove a document from the OMPF, there must be clear and convincing evidence showing the document is untrue or unjust. The applicant did not submit evidence showing the Article 15 in question is untrue or unjust. While he disagrees with its filing and subsequent loss of rank, it appears the commander and applicant were afforded military counsel to ensure his rights were fully protected at the time of its imposition in 1965. 4. As for the narrative reason for separation: a. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-209 for unsuitability due to a personality disorder. It appears based on the medical evidence of record the only valid narrative reason for separation at the time was "Personality Disorder." b. He contends that his misconduct was the result of an undiagnosed condition of PTSD as determined by the VA in 2005. c. The advisory official in this case found there is insufficient evidence to support changing the applicant's narrative reason for discharge from "Personality Disorder" to "Medical Disability." Additionally, review of his available service medical treatment records indicates that the applicant did not suffer from a medically unfitting condition and met medical retention standards while on active duty in 1965. 5. As for his NCIC record, by law and regulation, titling only requires credible information that an offense may have been committed. It further indicates that regardless of the characterization of the offense as founded, unfounded, or insufficient 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000531 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000531 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2