IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 May 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150000341 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, a review of his 1997 disability separation from the Army to show a higher rating and a subsequent medical retirement. 2. The applicant states he was not properly evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during his physical evaluation board (PEB) process. He brought his condition to the attention of Army doctors. 3. The applicant defers his evidence to counsel. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests correction of the applicant's records to show he was medically retired vice discharged with entitlement to severance pay retroactive to July 1997. 2. Counsel states: * the Army failed to properly evaluate the applicant for PTSD although his symptoms were present prior to the PEB * the applicant suffered significant psychological trauma from a foot injury caused by a vehicle driven by a fellow Soldier during training * the applicant also suffered severe psychological trauma as a victim who was exposed to an attempted murder committed by another Soldier * the foot injury and the shooting caused irreparable psychological trauma resulting in PTSD with symptoms of difficulty sleeping, depression, loss of memory, and nervousness * he was only evaluated for the foot injury and assigned a 10-percent disability rating which resulted in his separation with entitlement to severance pay * the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded him service-connected disability compensation for PTSD * the Secretary of Defense issued guidance to the Department of Defense (DOD) to consider PTSD as a mitigating factor in the separation 3. Counsel provides: * 1997 DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * 1996 DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) * 1997 DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) * 1991 enlistment physical * 2011/2013 VA medical records * VA correspondence * 2013 VA rating decision * 2014 Secretary of Defense memorandum CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 April 1991 and he held military occupational specialty (MOS) 54B (Chemical Operations Specialist). 3. He reenlisted in 1993 and he served in Korea from January 1994 to January 1995. He was promoted to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 in January 1994. At the time of his disability processing, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, NC. 4. On 28 March 1996, he was injured while conducting a road march. During the road march, the trail vehicle following the formation ran into him, as the last road marcher. The driver's inattention led to the vehicle running over the applicant's foot. He was taken to Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, due to multiple metatarsal fractures of his left foot. 5. In December 1996, he was issued a permanent physical profile rating of "3" in the lower extremities factor of his PULHES. The profile listed the condition of Lisfranc's degenerative joint disease and assigned the functional limitations of no running, no jumping, and no marching. 6. On 22 January 1997, he complained of continued left foot pain. He underwent a physical examination and listed his foot pain, left ankle and shoulder pain, wrist pain, hearing loss, allergic reaction, and headaches. His narrative summary (NARSUM) shows: a. He presented 10 months status post-left foot surgery. He had not been able to progress to full activity. His foot continued to hurt with walking and anytime he stepped on his toes. He had sustained a left Lisfranc's injury which required open reduction and internal fixation. He retained hardware in his left foot and had gone through normal recovery for this type of injury. b. His diagnosis was that of Lisfranc's arthritis of the left foot. He also had mixed hearing loss in the right ear and a physical profile rating of "2" in the hearing factor of his PULHES. The podiatry clinic revealed through x-rays good alignment of the Lisfranc's joint. There was a mild degenerative change to the joint and a good position for the hardware. His condition of painful left foot status post-Lisfranc's injury with open and internal fixation with early Lisfranc's degenerative joint disease was determined to have failed retention standards in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraph 3-41e(1). 7. On 3 March 1997, his commander rendered a fitness-for-duty statement wherein he stated: * the applicant's medical condition precluded him from performing essential tasks related to the unit (307th Combat Engineer Battalion (Airborne)) * the applicant's permanent physical profile precluded him from participating in airborne operations, road marches, weapons qualification, and regular unit physical training * the applicant was fully capable as a unit administrative clerk, but he desired to be in a line assignment * reclassification into another less-demanding field was contrary to his desire and his basic Soldiering was hampered by his medical profile * separation was recommended 8. On 26 March 1997, a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed as having the medically-unacceptable condition of painful left foot status post-Lisfranc's injury with open reduction and internal fixation with early Lisfranc's degenerative joint disease. The MEB recommended his referral to a PEB. On 10 April 1997, he was counseled and he agreed with the MEB's findings and recommendation. He also indicated he did not desire to continue on active duty. The MEB proceedings were approved. 9. On 1 May 1997, an informal PEB convened. The PEB found the applicant's condition prevented him from performing the duties required of his grade and MOS and determined that he was physically unfit due to painful left foot status post-Lisfranc's injury with open reduction and internal fixation with early Lisfranc's degenerative joint disease. He was rated under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), assigned code 5099/5293, and granted a 10-percent disability rating. The PEB recommended his separation with entitlement to severance pay, if otherwise qualified. 10. On 12 May 1997, the applicant was counseled by a PEB liaison officer who explained to him his rights, the disability process, the MEB process and how to appeal, the PEB adjudication, the difference between an informal and formal PEB, and the role of the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA). He elected to concur with the PEB's findings and recommendation and waived his right to a formal hearing of his case. 11. He was honorably discharged on 17 July 1997 under the provisions of paragraph 4-24b(3) of AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) by reason of physical disability with entitlement to severance pay. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 6 years, 2 months, and 25 days of active service. 12. Counsel provides the applicant's 2011/2012 VA progress notes, culminating in a VA rating decision on 29 April 2013 in response to his November 2010 claim, awarding him service connection, effective 22 November 2010, as follows: * chronic PTSD with panic disorder without agoraphobia, claimed as stress, anxiety, obsessive compulsive and depressive disorder – 70 percent * degenerative disc disease with sciatica and low back pain – 20 percent * degenerative joint disease, post-traumatic arthritis of the left foot status post fracture and open reduction and internal fixation – 20 percent * residual decreased range of motion of the left ankle – 10 percent * bilateral hearing loss – 10 percent * constant tinnitus – 10 percent * chondromalacia patella of left knee – 0 percent 13. An advisory opinion was received from a clinical psychologist on 8 April 2016 in the processing of this case. The psychologist stated: a. The applicant enlisted on 23 April 1991, and he served as a Chemical Operations Specialist for approximately six years. On 17 July 1997, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of AR 635-40, paragraph 4-24b (disability, severance pay). He submitted an application requesting to be medically retired retroactive to 17 July 1997. He alleges he was not properly evaluated for PTSD at his PEB proceedings despite bringing his condition to the Army’s attention during the PEB. b. On 3 April 1997, an MEB was convened for painful left foot, status post Lisfranc injury with open reduction and internal fixation with early Lisfranc degenerative joint disease. After consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examination, the MEB concluded his physical conditions did not exist prior to military service and were incurred while entitled to base pay. The MEB recommended that he be referred to a PEB to determine if he was fit for continued military service and eligible for disability compensation. PTSD was not among the conditions listed for consideration during the MEB proceedings. c. On 15 May 1997, a PEB convened and found him physically unfit for physical conditions (e.g., Disability 1: pain, left foot, status post Lisfranc injury with open reduction and internal fixation and early degenerative arthritis Lisfranc joint). The PEB recommended a rating of 10% and separation with severance pay, if otherwise qualified. PTSD was not among the conditions listed for consideration during the PEB proceedings. d. Per a Report of Medical Examination, dated 22 June 1997, which was conducted for the purpose of an MEB, the evaluating healthcare provider concluded that the psychiatric clinical evaluation portion of the medical examination was normal. However, the applicant was deemed unqualified for retention in the military on the basis of physical conditions. The VA awarded him 70% service-connected disability for PTSD with panic disorder without agoraphobia, Gulf War incurred, effective 22 November 2010, approximately 13 years following his military discharge. e. Taking into consideration the documentation available for review at this time, there is currently insufficient information to reasonably conclude that at the time of his discharge from active duty the applicant had a diagnosis of PTSD or other boardable behavioral health condition that failed medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501, Chapter 3, thereby warranting disposition via medical channels. This does not preclude that he may have developed PTSD following military service. 14. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion. His counsel responded on 22 April 2016 and stated: a. Paragraph 5 of the advisory opinion indicates "PTSD was not among the conditions listed for consideration during the PEB proceedings.” However, the applicant clearly raised the symptoms of PTSD on his Report of Medical History, dated 22 January 1997. This report was included in his original brief. He elaborated on his PTSD type symptoms on the continuation form also originally submitted. On 22 January 1997, he was examined by Ga-- Br----, PA. The applicant reported that the examination was cursory at best with the only area examined being his foot which was the subject of a fracture. b. Then, the applicant was a patient at Behavioral Health, Fort Bragg, NC soon after the vehicle accident that broke his foot. He expressed suicidal ideations, homicidal thoughts, loss of memory, and not knowing the date or time to the enlisted counselor. He clearly expressed the symptoms of PTSD during his time at Fort Bragg as well as on the 22 January 1997 report. As such, he feels strongly that the failure to consider PTSD during his MEB/PEB process was an error. 15. Title 10, U.S. Code chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The USAPDA, under the operational control of the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), is responsible for administering the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and AR 635-40. a. The objectives of the system are to maintain an effective and fit military organization with maximum use of available manpower; provide benefits for eligible Soldiers whose military service is terminated because of service-connected disability; and provide prompt disability processing while ensuring that the rights and interests of the government and the Soldier are protected. b. Soldiers are referred to the PDES when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501, chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; receive a permanent medical profile rating of "3" or "4" and are referred by an MOS/Medical Retention Board; are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination; or are referred by the Commander, HRC. c. The PDES assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and the PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability are either separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are separated receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. d. The mere presence of medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 16. AR 635-40 establishes the Army PDES 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. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. 17. AR 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation (including retirement). Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the PEB rates all disabilities using the VASRD. 18. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent. 19. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 20. 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 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 nosologic classification scheme. Although controversial when first introduced, the PTSD diagnosis has filled an important gap in psychiatric theory and practice. From a 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." 21. 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. 22. The fifth edition of the DSM 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 criterion assesses functioning, and the eighth criterion clarifies symptoms as not attributable to a substance or co-occurring medical condition. 23. As a result of the extensive research conducted by the medical community and the relatively recent issuance of revised criteria regarding the causes, diagnosis, and treatment of PTSD, the DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) 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 Soldiers' 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 a 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. 24. On 3 September 2014 in view of the foregoing information, 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 applicants' service. 25. 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? 26. Although DOD acknowledges that some Soldiers who were administratively discharged UOTHC may have had an undiagnosed condition of PTSD at the time of their discharge, it is presumed that they were properly discharged based upon the evidence that was available at the time. Conditions documented in the records 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. BCM/NRs 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. BCM/NRs will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant sustained a foot injury during a vehicle accident. He underwent treatment and surgery, but he continued to experience pain and discomfort. He was seen by various medical specialists and recommended for entry into the PDES due to his continuous pain. The MEB diagnosed him with only one physical condition that did not meet retention standards. He was not diagnosed with any behavioral health conditions and his commander did not address any behavioral issues. 2. The MEB referred him to a PEB. The informal PEB determined he was physically unfit due to painful left foot status post-Lisfranc's injury with open reduction and internal fixation with early Lisfranc's degenerative joint disease. Based on a review of the medical evidence of record, the PEB concluded his medical condition prevented satisfactory performance of duty in his grade and MOS and rated him under the VASRD with a 10-percent disability rating. 3. The informal PEB recommended his separation with entitlement to severance pay, if otherwise qualified. He concurred with the PEB's findings and recommendation and waived his right to formal hearing of his case. He was discharged by reason of disability on 17 July 1997 with severance pay. 4. With respect to his arguments: a. The reason for the applicant's entry into the PDES was his foot condition. This is the only condition that failed retention standards and was found unfitting. His disability rating was not intended to be a prediction of his future medical condition. The fact that he may have later developed new medical issues, such as PTSD, does not invalidate the PEB determination. b. Not only is there no evidence of a diagnosis of a behavioral/mental health condition at the time of his separation, there is also no evidence that had there been one, it failed retention standards and/or was found unfitting. Conditions that are not diagnosed and/or are not unfitting are not ratable or compensable. Likewise, conditions that are not unfitting are neither assigned a VASRD code nor a rating. A key element of the Army's disability system is the Soldier's condition at the time of separation. His contention that this or any other condition may have existed at the time or worsened with time is noted but rejected. Conditions that worsen after a Soldier is separated may be treated by and are compensated for by the VA. c. The mere presence of medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. d. There is no evidence in his records and he provided none that shows he suffered from and was diagnosed by competent medical authorities with any mental or behavioral health conditions, including PTSD. His contention that he suffered from a possible behavioral health condition (PTSD) prior to his separation from active duty or during the time he was undergoing the disability process is not supported by any evidence. e. The Army and the VA disability evaluation systems are independent of one another. A diagnosis of a medical condition and an award of a rating by another agency do not establish error by the Army. Operating under different laws and their own policies, the VA does not have the authority or the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service. The VA may award ratings because of a medical condition related to service (service-connected) and affects the individual's civilian employability. The VA has the responsibility and jurisdiction to recognize any changes in a condition over time by adjusting a disability rating. f. If and when identified, diagnosed, evaluated, and rated, a disability rating assigned by the Army is based on the level of disability at the time of the Soldier's separation. Only those conditions that render a member unfit for continued military duty at the time of separation will be rated. However, the VA can potentially rate all service-connected conditions. g. His argument in relation to the Secretary of Defense's recent memorandum is also rejected. The intent of this memorandum is to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions 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. h. The intent is to determine if PTSD conditions were a causative factor in specific misconduct that led to a Soldier's discharge with a less than honorable characterization of service. The Board would normally weigh the severity of a Soldier's misconduct and determine if there is sufficient mitigating evidence to warrant upgrading the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to general under honorable conditions. The applicant in this case was medically discharged and received an honorable character of service. Counsel appears to selectively expand this guidance to fit his needs. 5. The PEB is tasked to assess the degree of disability at the time of discharge. The PEB did so and rated his physical condition as 10-percent disabling. There is no evidence that he should have been awarded a higher rating. Since this rating was less than 30 percent, by law he was only entitled to severance pay. 6. The applicant's physical disability evaluation was conducted in accordance with law and regulations and the applicant concurred with the recommendation of the PEB. There does not appear to be an error or an injustice in his case. Aside from his dissatisfaction, he has not submitted substantiating evidence or an argument that would show an error or injustice occurred in his case. In view of the circumstances in this case, there is no reason to grant him the requested relief. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X____ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150000341 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150000341 14 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1